08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

SAMUEL K. LIPARI, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Case No. 07-CV-02146-CM-DJW 

) 

U.S. BANCORP, and ) 

) 

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE ORDER 

COMPELLING DISCOVERY AND SANCTIONING THE PLAINTIFF 

Defendants U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank National Association, by and through counsel, 

file this Response to the Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate’s Order Compelling Discovery 

and Sanctioning the Plaintiff. The Magistrate’s Order was correct on all accounts and should be 

upheld in its entirety. 

As noted in the Magistrate’s Order, the plaintiff failed to serve any response to plaintiff’s 

Motion to Compel. This alone is sufficient justification for the Magistrate’s ruling. See, D. Kan. 

R. 7.4. Nonetheless, the plaintiff contends that despite not serving any responses to defendants’ 

Requests for Production, he as provided all responsive documents in a voluminous settlement 

package. Plaintiff’s arguments fail for two reasons. 

First, plaintiff did not assert this argument before the Magistrate’s ruling. If the plaintiff 

believes he has sufficiently responded to defendants’ discovery requests, he should have filed a 

response to the Motion to Compel asserting these arguments. But he did not do so and may not 

assert them here for the first time. 

2342450.01 

08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5576

Next, even if plaintiff had asserted this argument, service of his argumentative settlement 

brief (which exceeds 500 pages) does not relieve plaintiff of his responsibility to respond to 

defendants’ properly served discovery requests. In the context of discovery responses, courts in 

this District recognize that a party must specifically identify which documents are responsive to a 

particular request. See¸ e.g., Johnson v. Kraft Foods North America, Inc., 236 F. R. D. 535, 541 

(D. Kan. 2006). 

Therefore, even if plaintiff’s settlement brief contains some relevant 

information, mere service of it is still non-responsive because it does not delineate which 

documents are supposedly responsive to which requests. 

The plaintiff makes further accusations that the defendants have failed to comply with his 

discovery requests. These are false. While the plaintiff has submitted Requests for Production 

to the defendants, the defendants timely filed a Motion for Protective Order which is currently 

pending before this Court. 

Likewise, defendants also made formal objections to each of 

plaintiff’s discovery requests. The plaintiff failed to challenge these objections within the time 

frame set forth in D. Kan. Rule 37.1, and has therefore waived his ability to do so. 

But despite the objections and Motion for a Protective Order, the defendants still made a 

good faith effort to search for responsive information and have produced responsive 

non-privileged documentation where they could reasonably do so. Therefore, the defendants 

have fully complied with their obligations under the rules of this Court and the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

The plaintiff has failed to show any justification for the District Court to overrule the 

Magistrate’s Order. For the above-stated reasons, the defendants request the District Court fully 

uphold the Magistrate’s Order compelling production of documents and sanctioning the plaintiff, 

and further grant defendants what other relief to which they are justly entitled. 

2342450.01 

2 


Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Jay E. Heidrick 

ANDREW M. DeMAREA KS #16141 

JAY E. HEIDRICK KS #20770 

SHUGHART THOMSON & KILROY, P.C. 

32 Corporate Woods, Suite 1100 

9225 Indian Creek Parkway 

Overland Park, Kansas 66210 

(913) 451-3355 

(913) 451-3361 (FAX) 

MARK A. OLTHOFF KS # 70339 


1700 Twelve Wyandotte Plaza 

120 W 12th Street 

Kansas City, Missouri 64105-1929 

(816) 421-3355 

(816) 374-0509 (FAX) 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 

U.S. BANCORP and U.S. BANK NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing document was filed electronically 

with the above-captioned court, with notice of case activity to be generated and sent 

electronically by the Clerk of said court (with a copy to be e-mailed to any individuals who do 

not receive electronic notice from the Clerk) this 18th day of July, 2008, to: 

Mr. Samuel K. Lipari 

297 NE Bayview 

Lee’s Summit, MO 64064 


Attorney for Defendants 

2342450.01 

3 


DJW/bh 

SAMUEL K. LIPARI, 



v. 

U.S. BANCORP, N.A., et al., 

Plaintiff, 

Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION 

No. 07-2146-CM-DJW 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 

26(a)(1) (doc. 68). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part. 

I. Background Information 

On April 20, 2007, Plaintiff served his initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(a)(1). His disclosure statement listed 67 individuals and provided a generic 

identification for each person, such as “Antitrust,” “Technology,” “Contracting,” “Funding,” and 

“FBI.” Other individuals were identified only as “Witness.” No addresses or telephone numbers 

were provided for any of the 67 listed individuals. 

Plaintiff’s disclosure statement also listed thousands of documents, 1 many of which were 

only briefly described. 2 Some of the documents were also identified by Bates Stamp Numbers. 

Accompanying the disclosure statement was a CD containing the documents listed in the disclosure 

statement. The disc contains more than 11,000 pages of documents. 

1 The listing of documents is approximately 39 pages in length. 

2 

For example, documents were identified as “Neil Marsh Invoice,” “Article When Private 

Goes Public,” “Vendor Rating a GPO Model.” 


After the instant Motion to Compel was filed, Plaintiff served a supplemental disclosure 

statement that lists the names of 34 individuals. All but one of the 34 individuals listed in the 

supplemental statement were also listed in the initial statement. Unlike the initial statement, the 

supplemental statement provides addresses for 14 of the listed individuals. 

Defendants seek an order directing Plaintiff to amend his disclosures. Defendants contend 

that Plaintiff’s witness disclosures are deficient because Plaintiff fails to provide the telephone 

numbers and addresses for the individuals disclosed, and the subjects of those individuals’ 

knowledge. Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s document disclosures are deficient because Plaintiff 

has disclosed thousands of pages of documents that are not only irrelevant to his claims but do not 

even pertain to this lawsuit. Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s document disclosures are 

deficient because the written listing of documents is “not organized by category.” 3 

In his brief opposing the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff explains that he “has now supplemented 

his disclosures to include the addresses he knows,” 4 but states that “[t]he majority of 

witnesses . . . come from the defendants.” 5 He also states that in his initial disclosures he “included 

the relevant documents to the plaintiff’s claims and factual averments in his complaint.” 6 

In 

addition, he explains that he “has served the documents to the defendants in indexed form on a 

conveniently searchable disc, with an informative description of each.” 7 

3 Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. to Compel (doc. 70) at p. 4. 

4 

Pl.’s Mem. In Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Compel (doc. 75) at p. 1. 

5 Id. at p. 7. 

6 Id. at p.1. 

7 

Id. at p. 7. 

2 


In their reply, Defendants state that it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s supplemental list of 34 

individuals is intended to replace the list of 67 individuals disclosed in Plaintiff’s initial disclosure 

statement or whether it is simply another list that further identifies some of the initially disclosed 

67 individuals. In addition, Defendants point out that Plaintiff has failed to provide the subject 

matter of the discoverable information known by any of the 34 individuals listed in the supplemental 

disclosure statement. Defendants further state that the disc provided by Plaintiff is not searchable 

and is, in fact, password protected, which prevents the documents from being searched or re-created 

in .pdf format. Defendants concede, however, that they have been able “to view” each of the 11,000 

pages of documents that are on the disc. 8 

II. 

Discussion 

A. Disclosure of Witnesses 

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) provides for the disclosure of certain individuals who are likely to have 

discoverable information about the case. It provides that a party must provide to the other parties: 

the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each 

individual likely to have discoverable information –– along with the 

subjects of that information –– that the disclosing party may use to 

support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for 

impeachment[.] 9 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5581 

8 Defs.’ Reply (doc. 79) at p. 1 

9 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). 

3

Thus, under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff was required to provide the following information 

about any individuals likely to have discoverable information that he may use to support his claims 

or defenses: 

! person’s name; 

! person’s telephone number and address, if known by Plaintiff; and 

! the subject of the discoverable information known by that person. 

As noted above, Defendants fault Plaintiff’s witness disclosures for three main reasons. 

First, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to adequately identify the subject of the 

discoverable information known by each individual. This Court has found only a handful of cases 

that address the degree of specificity required under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) regarding the subject of the 

discoverable information known by the potential witness. 10 Some guidance, however, can be 

gleaned from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g)(1), which provides that initial disclosures must 

10 See, e.g., Lobato v. Ford, No. 05-cv-01437-LTB-CBS, 2007 WL 2593485, at *5 (D. Colo. 

Sept. 5, 2007) (“While a party is not necessarily required to provide a minute recitation of the 

putative witness’ knowledge, the Rule 26(a)(1)(A) disclosure should indicate briefly the general 

topics on which such persons have knowledge.”); Hertz v. Luzenac Am., Inc., No. 04-cv-1961-LTB- 

CBS, 2006 WL 994431, at *7 (D. Colo. Apr. 13, 2006) (“[D]isclosures should provide the opposing 

party with enough useful information to make informed decisions regarding discovery and trial 

preparation”); Sender v. Mann, 225 F.R.D. 645, 650-51 (D. Colo. 2004) (holding that disclosures 

should be complete and detailed and should give opposing party more than “a laundry list of 

undifferentiated witnesses” and finding disclosures deficient where plaintiff identified brokers and 

investors as “having knowledge regarding the sale of promissory notes and the amounts owed to 

them pursuant to such notes” or “in some instances, having knowledge of other schemes attempted 

or contemplated by [Defendants]”); Crouse Cartage Co. v. Nat’l Warehouse Inv. Co., No. IP02- 

071CTK, 2003 WL 23142182, at *1 (S.D. Ind. 2003) (holding that “initial disclosures should be 

complete and detailed, and should give the opposing party information as to the identification and 

location of persons with knowledge so that they can be contacted in connection with the litigation.”); 

see also generally City and County of San Francisco v. Tutor-Saliba Corp., 218 F.R.D. 219, 221 

(N.D. Cal. 2003) (disclosures function “to assist the parties in focusing and prioritizing their 

organization of discovery.”). 

4 


e based upon a “reasonable inquiry” by counsel or the disclosing party, and must be “complete and 

correct as of the time [they] are made.” 11 Guidance is also provided by the Advisory Committee’s 

Note to the 1993 amendments, which states that a “major purpose of the [Rule] is to accelerate the 

exchange of basic information about the case and to eliminate the paper work involved in requesting 

such information, and the rule should be applied in a manner to achieve those objectives.” 12 

Furthermore, the Advisory Committee explains: 

[The parties] are expected to disclose the identity of those persons who may be used 

by them as witnesses or who, if their potential testimony were known, might 

reasonably be expected to be deposed or called as a witness by any of the other 

parties. Indicating briefly the general topics on which such persons have information 

should not be burdensome, and will assist other parties in deciding which depositions 

will actually be needed. 13 

Thus, while a party is not required to provide a detailed narrative of the potential witness’ 

knowledge, the Rule 26(a)(1)(A) disclosure should provide enough information that would allow 

the opposing party to help focus the discovery that is needed and to determine whether a deposition 

of a particular person identified as a potential witness might be necessary. Clearly, Plaintiff’s 

witness disclosures do not meet this standard. It is difficult to understand how Plaintiff’s generic 

descriptions of “Technology, “Communications,”“FBI,” etc., for these potential witnesses could 

11 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1). 

12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) advisory committee’s note (1993 amendment); see also Biltrite Corp. 

v. World Road Markings, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 359, 362 (D. Mass. 2001) (“The obvious purpose of the 

disclosure requirement of Rule 26(a)(1)(A) is to give the opposing party information as to the 

identification and location of persons with knowledge so that they can be contacted in connection 

with the litigation. . . .”). 

13 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) advisory committee’s note (1993 amendment). 

5 


help focus the discovery efforts of Defendants or assist Defendants in determining whether a 

deposition of a particular listed individual might be necessary. 

Plaintiff may not excuse his compliance with this requirement merely because, as Plaintiff 

puts it, most of the identified individuals “come from the defendants.” 14 

The Rule requires the 

disclosing party to identify those individuals who may have discoverable information that the 

disclosing party may use to support its own claims and defenses. 15 

In other words, Plaintiff need 

only disclose those individuals that may have discoverable information that Plaintiff himself may 

use to support his claims or defenses. Once he makes that determination and identifies certain 

persons, he must provide a sufficient description of the discoverable knowledge that he believes they 

possess. 

Defendants also find fault with Plaintiff’s witness disclosures because Plaintiff fails to list 

addresses for many of the individuals and fails to list telephone numbers for all of them. Also, it is 

unclear whether the supplemental disclosure statement is intended to merely supplement the initial 

disclosure statement or to take its place. 

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) requires the disclosing party to provide the name and telephone numbers 

of the individuals only “if known” by the disclosing party Thus, Plaintiff can be compelled to 

provide addresses and telephone numbers only if that information is known to him. Assuming that 

information is known to him, he is not excused from providing it merely because he believes 

Defendants already have knowledge of these individuals and their contact information. 

14 Pl.’s Mem. In Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Compel (doc. 75) at p. 7. 

15 

See Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) (party must disclose each individual “likely to have discoverable 

information . . . that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use 

would be solely for impeachment.” (Emphasis added.) 

6 


In light of the foregoing, the Court directs Plaintiff to serve amended Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) 

disclosures that take the place of his initial and supplemental disclosures 16 and which provide 

sufficiently detailed information regarding the subject of each potential witness’ knowledge. In 

addition, the amended disclosures shall provide each individual’s address and telephone number, 

if known to Plaintiff. Finally, Plaintiff shall insure that any individuals listed are those who he 

believes are likely to have discoverable information that he may use to support his claims or 

defenses in this particular lawsuit. These amended disclosures shall be served on Defendants by 

July 30, 2008. 

B. Disclosure of Documents 

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a party to provide to the other parties in the lawsuit “a copy –– 

or a description by category and location –– of all documents, electronically stored information, and 

tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to 

support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.” 17 To comply with 

the Rule, then, Plaintiff was required to provide Defendants with the following: 

! either a copy or a description by category and location, of all documents, electronically 

stored information, and tangible things; 

! that are in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control; and 

! that Plaintiff may use to support his claims or defenses in this lawsuit. 

Defendants essentially argue that the first and third of these requirements have not meet satisfied. 

16 

This should end any confusion as to whether the supplemental disclosures were intended 

to replace the initial disclosures. 

17 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii). 

7 


With respect to the first requirement, Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s written descriptions 

of the indexed documents are “far from informative” 18 and that the disc of documents provided by 

Plaintiff is password protected so that Defendants cannot search it and cannot re-create the 

documents in .pdf format. Defendants do not dispute, however, that they have been able to review 

all of the documents that are found on the disc. 19 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has complied with the first requirement by providing the disc 

to Defendants. By doing so, Plaintiff, in effect, provided a “copy” (albeit in electronic form) of each 

of the disclosed documents. The Rule is written in the disjunctive; Plaintiff may provide either a 

copy or a description of the documents by category and location. As Plaintiff provided a copy, he 

was not required to provide a description. It is thus immaterial that he may have provided 

insufficient descriptions of his documents on his written index of documents. Furthermore, there 

is no requirement that Plaintiff provide Defendant with a disc of the documents that is “searchable” 

or that allows the documents contained on it to be converted to .pdf format. Defendants concede 

that they have been able to review each of the documents contained on the disc; thus, whether the 

disc is searchable or allows the documents to be recreated in .pdf format is immaterial. 

With respect to the third requirement, Defendants argue that none of the thousands of pages 

of documents that Plaintiff has disclosed is relevant to this case. More specifically, Defendants 

argue that Plaintiff’s disclosures are a duplicate of what he served in another case, Lipari, et al. v. 

General Electric, et al., Case No. 0616-CV7421, filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, 

18 Defs.’ Reply (doc. 79) at p. 2. 

19 Id. 

8 


Missouri (“General Electric case”). 20 According to Defendants, those documents are unrelated to 

this case because the General Electric case involves different defendants and different facts. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendants are incorrect when they argue that his document disclosures 

must be deficient because they are the same document disclosures made in the General Electric 

case. Plaintiff argues that both this case and General Electric stem from the same underlying facts. 

He states that “both cases cover the same events and rely on the same determination of Medical 

Supply Chain, Inc.’s income if [Defendants] had not breached their contracts with Medical Supply 

Chain, Inc.” and engaged in the other wrongful acts alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 21 Plaintiff 

further states that he has disclosed “the documents related to the launch of his business and his 

claims against the defendants that the plaintiff will likely be using in court before a jury.” 22 

Not having reviewed the documents at issue and not being intimately familiar with the facts 

and allegations of this case, or for that matter, the General Electric case, the Court is not in a 

position to determine whether each and every document disclosed by Plaintiff is one that he might 

use to support his claims and defenses. The Court declines to enter an order, based upon nothing 

more than doubt and speculation, that would require Plaintiff to remove certain documents from his 

disclosures. The Court will, however, direct Plaintiff to file a supplemental Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) 

disclosure statement in which he makes an affirmative statement that the documents listed on his 

initial Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) written disclosure statement, and contained on the disc provided to 

20 Plaintiff states that the General Electric case is now filed in the Western District of 

Missouri, Case No. 07-0849-CV-W-FJG. Pl.’s Mem. in Opp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Compel (doc. 75) 

at p. 1. 

21 Id. at p.3. 

22 

Id. at p. 5. 

9 


Defendants, are documents that he (1) has in his possession, custody, or control, and (2) may use 

to support his claims or defenses in this case. To the extent Plaintiff has disclosed documents that 

fall outside of this definition, he shall serve amended document disclosures that comply with Rule 

26(a)(1)(a)(ii) and this Memorandum and Order. The supplemental disclosure statement or amended 

disclosures shall be served on Defendants by July 30, 2008. 

III. 

Attorney’s Fees and Expenses 

Defendants do not expressly request an award of expenses or fees in connection with their 

Motion to Compel; they merely “request all . . . relief to which they are justly entitled.” 23 The Court 

must look to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5), which deals with the payment of expenses 

incurred in connection with motions to compel. Subsection (C) provides for the payment of the 

moving party’s expenses if the motion to compel discovery is granted in part. It provides that the 

Court “may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the 

motion.” 24 

To satisfy the requirement that the parties be given the opportunity to be heard, the Court 

directs Plaintiff to show cause, in a pleading filed on or before August 13, 2008, why he should not 

be required to pay a portion of the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees Defendants incurred in 

making their Motion to Compel. Defendants shall have until August 24, 2008 to file a response 

thereto, if they so choose. In the event the Court determines that expenses and fees should be 

awarded and apportioned, the Court will issue an order setting forth a schedule for the filing of an 

23 Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Compel (doc. 70) at p. 5. 

24 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). 

10 


affidavit reflecting the amount of expenses and fees that Defendants have incurred, and for the filing 

of any related briefs. 

IV. 

Other Relief 

Defendants ask that the Court caution Plaintiff that any further discovery abuses may result 

in severe sanctions, including the possible dismissal of his claims. The Court declines to enter such 

an order, finding that Defendants have not shown that Plaintiff has engaged in discovery abuses in 

connection with his Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Compliance with 

Rule 26(a)(1) (doc. 68) is granted in part and denied in part, as set forth herein.. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before July 30, 2008, Plaintiff shall serve an 

amended Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) witness disclosure statement in compliance with this Memorandum 

and Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before July 30, 2008, Plaintiff shall serve a 

supplemental Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) document disclosure statement or amended Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) 

document disclosures in compliance with this Memorandum and Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before August 13, 2008, Plaintiff shall show 

cause in a pleading filed with the Court, why he should not be required to pay a portion of the 

reasonable fees and expenses that Defendants incurred in making their Motion to Compel. 

Defendants shall have until August 24, 2008 to file a response thereto. 

11 


IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated in Kansas City, Kansas on this 22nd day of July 2008. 

s/ David J. Waxse 

David J. Waxse 

U.S. Magistrate Judge 

cc: 

All counsel and pro se parties 

12 


DJW/bh 




v. 


Plaintiff, 

Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION 

No. 07-2146-CM-DJW 


This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Petition (doc. 

101). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion. 

I. Background Information 

Plaintiff filed this action on November 28, 2006 in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, 

Missouri. On December 13, 2006, Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri, based on diversity jurisdiction. The District Court for the 

Western District of Missouri transferred the case to this District. Plaintiff’s Petition asserts claims 

for breach of contract, fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets under R.S.Mo. § 417.450, breach of 

fiduciary duty, and prima facie tort. 

This Court held a scheduling conference on January 11, 2008, at which time the Court set 

a March 1, 2008 deadline for filing motions to join additional parties or otherwise amend the 

pleadings. 1 In addition, the Court set a July 1, 2008 deadline for completing discovery, a July 30, 

1 Scheduling Order (doc. 5), 3.a. 


2008 pretrial conference, and an August 15, 2008 dispositive motion deadline. 2 Trial was set for 

March 2, 2009. On July 23, 2008, the Court converted the pretrial conference to a telephone status 

conference to take up Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings. 3 

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend on July 18, 2008, more than three and one-half 

months after the March 1, 2008 deadline for filing motions to amend, and more than two weeks after 

the close of discovery. Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. 

Two motions to dismiss have been filed in this case. The first motion was granted in part 

on November 16, 2007 (see doc. 39). Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss (doc. 43) on 

December 19, 2007, and that motion is pending before the District Court Judge. 

II. 

Plaintiff’s Proposed Amendments 

In support of his motion, Plaintiff asserts that his initial petition “was written for a Missouri 

state court forum,” 4 and that his amendments are intended “to correct any deficiencies found in the 

second dismissal.” 5 

Plaintiff’s motion does not include “a concise statement” of the proposed 

amendments, as required by D. Kan. Rule 15.1. He merely states that “[t]he amended text is 

between paragraphs 257 and 258 on pages 70 to 73.” 6 

Plaintiff attaches a copy of the proposed Amended Petition, in which he adds a new cause 

of action under Count VI. It is entitled: 

2 Id., 2.b., 3.c., and 4.b. 

3 

See Order (doc. 104). 

4 

Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to Amend Pet. (doc. 101) at p.1. 

5 Id. 

6 

Id. 

2 


Cause of Action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Against US Bank NA and US 

Bancorp That Subtitle B, Section 351 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by 

Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA 

Patriot) Act of 2001 Amendment of 31 U.S.C. §5318(g) Violates the First and Fifth 

Amendments of the United States Constitution. 7 

Proposed Count VI consists of nine paragraphs, in which Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that 

Defendants have deprived him of property and prevented him “from seeking redress in their role as 

the enforcement officers or agents of the government under 31 U.S.C. § 5318(g).” 8 

Under Count 

VI, Plaintiff requests that the Court declare 31 U.S.C. §5318(g)(2)(A)(i) unconstitutional and enjoin 

Defendants “from withholding documents related to their enforcement of the USA PATRIOT Act.” 9 

Plaintiff argues that Defendants will not be prejudiced by the amendments. He contends 

there is no potential for prejudice because “the audio recording and email shows the parties knew 

they were in contract and then later used the USA PATRIOT ACT to default on the contract.” 10 

III. 

Standard for Ruling on a Motion to Amend 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), once a responsive pleading has been 

filed, “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s 

leave.” 11 Rule 15(a)(2) specifies that the court “freely give leave when justice so requires.” 12 

Nonetheless, a court may refuse to grant leave to amend based on “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory 

7 Proposed Am. Pet., attached as Ex. 2 to Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to Amend Pet. (doc. 101). 

8 

Id., 257.2. 

9 Id., 257.9. 

10 Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to Amend Pet. (doc. 101) at p. 2. 

11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

12 

Id. 

3 


motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously 

allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility 

of amendment.” 13 

When a motion is filed beyond the deadline for filing motions to amend, as in this case, the 

court must also take into account the good cause standard found in Rule 16(b)(4), 14 which provides 

that a scheduling order deadline “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 

consent.” 15 Thus, when a motion to amend is filed beyond the Scheduling Order deadline, the court 

must first determine whether the moving party has established “good cause” within the meaning of 

Rule 16(b)(4) so as to justify allowing the untimely motion, and, only after determining that good 

cause has been established, will the Court proceed to determine if the Rule 15(a) standard for 

amendment has been satisfied. 16 

To establish good cause under Rule 16, the moving party must show that the deadline “could 

not have been met with diligence.” 17 “Carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and 

13 

Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foman v. 

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 

14 Boatright v. Larned State Hosp., No. 05-3183-JAR-KGS, 2007 WL 2693674, at *6 (D. 

Kan. Sept. 20, 2007); McCormick v. Medicalodges, Inc., No. 05-2429-KHV-JPO, 2007 WL 471127 

at *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2007). 

15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 

16 See, e.g., Boatright, 2007 WL 2693674, at *5 (applying two-part test); McCormick, 2007 

WL 471127, at *2 (same); Deghand v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 904 F.Supp. 1218, 1221 (D. Kan. 

1995) (“Because the plaintiff sought leave to amend her complaint after the deadline established in 

the pretrial scheduling order, Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the plaintiff's first 

hurdle. . . . Rule 15 is the next hurdle for the plaintiff.”). 

17 Simpson v. Home Depot, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 643, 644 (D. Kan. 2001) (quoting Denmon v. 

Runyon, 151 F.R.D. 404, 407 (D. Kan. 1993)); accord Deghand, 904 F.Supp. at 1221 (the moving 

(continued...) 

4 


offers no reason for a grant of relief.” 18 Furthermore, the lack of prejudice to the nonmovant does 

not show “good cause.” 19 

IV. 

Analysis 

Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why he did not timely file his motion to add this new 

cause of action. In addition, Plaintiff has not made any attempt to demonstrate why he could not 

have met the March 1, 2008 deadline through diligence. He merely argues that Defendants will not 

be prejudiced by the amendments, that his amendments are intended “to correct any deficiencies 

found in the second dismissal,” 20 and that his Petition needs to be modified because it was initially 

drafted as a state court pleading. 

Plaintiff’s arguments are not persuasive. As noted above, whether Defendants may or may 

not be prejudiced by the amendment is not a consideration in determining whether Plaintiff has 

established good cause for filing his motion to amend out of time. Secondly, Plaintiff’s assertion 

that the proposed amendments are intended to correct the deficiencies raised by Defendant’s second 

motion to dismiss does not establish good cause for why he did not move to amend by the March 

1, 2008 deadline. Defendants filed their second motion to dismiss on December 19, 2007; yet 

Plaintiff waited seven months to file the instant motion to amend. The same is true with respect to 

17 

(...continued) 

party “must show that despite due diligence it could not have reasonably met the scheduled 

deadlines.”). 

18 

Deghand, 904 F.Supp. at 1221 (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 

604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

19 Id. (citations omitted). 

20 

Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to Amend Pet. (doc. 101) at p. 1. 

5 


Plaintiff’s contention that he needs to amend his Petition because it was drafted to be filed in state 

court, and not federal court. This case was removed to federal court in December 2006; yet Plaintiff 

did not move to amend until one and one-half years later. 

In light of the above, the Court holds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate why he could 

not have met the March 1, 2008 amendment deadline with diligence, and, thus, has failed to 

establish “good cause” within the meaning of Rule 16(b)(4) so as to justify allowing his untimely 

motion. The Court is mindful that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and that his filings must be liberally 

construed and held to a less stringent standard than pleadings filed by an attorney. 21 This requires 

that the Court look past any confusion of legal theories or failure to cite proper legal authority. 22 

Despite this liberal standard, the Tenth Circuit has made it clear that a court is not allowed to craft 

arguments or theories for a pro se plaintiff in the absence of any discussion of those issues. 23 Thus, 

the Court will not attempt to speculate or formulate explanations as to why Plaintiff may have been 

unable to file his motion to amend by the March 1, 2008 deadline. 

As Plaintiff has failed to satisfy Rule 16’s good cause standard, the Court is not required to 

consider whether Plaintiff has satisfied the standard for amendment under Rule 15(a). 24 In light of 

21 See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (“A pro se litigant’s pleadings 

are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by 

lawyers.”). 

22 Id. 

23 Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1159 (10th Cir. 1991). 

24 If the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 15(a), one factor the Court 

would consider is the potential for prejudice to Defendants. The Court finds that Defendants would 

be prejudiced by the introduction of a new cause of action at this late stage of the lawsuit –– after 

discovery has been completed and with the dispositive motion deadline only a few weeks away. 

Such prejudice would be sufficient for the Court to deny Plaintiff leave to amend under Rule 15. 

6 


Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate good cause for filing his motion to amend out of time, the Court 

must deny the motion. 

101) is denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Petition (doc. 


Dated in Kansas City, Kansas on this 28th day of July 2008. 




cc: 


7 












08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5608







































) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 


) 


) 


) 

Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT 

AND TO STAY FURTHER PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS 

Defendants U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank National Association, through counsel Shughart 

Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., file this response to plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Or Amend Judgment 

pursuant to Rule 59(e) and to stay further proceedings. Plaintiff’s request to stay the proceedings 

has already been denied by this Court and his Motion is moot. On July 18, 2008, plaintiff filed a 

Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and Motion to Stay Further Pre-Trial Proceedings 

concerning the Court’s denial of his motion for time to extend discovery. In that motion, 

plaintiff also sought to stay all further pre-trial proceedings. See, Doc. #100. Defendants 

responded to this motion on July 28, 2008. See, Doc. #106. On July 30, 2008, the Court denied 

plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Further Pre-Trial Proceedings. See, Doc. #108. Therefore, plaintiff’s 

request to stay further proceedings is moot. 

As to plaintiff’s request to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), defendants 

incorporate by reference all arguments made in their Memorandum In Opposition to Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Alter or Amendment Judgment and to Stay Further Pre-Trial Proceedings contained in 

Doc. #106, and request the Court deny plaintiff’s Motion. 

2356512.01 


WHEREFORE, for the above stated reasons, defendants request this Court deny 

plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and to Stay Further Pre-Trial Proceedings (Doc. 

#107) and grant defendants all other relief to which they are justly entitled. 









(913) 451-3355 

(913) 451-3361 (FAX) 






(816) 421-3355 

(816) 374-0509 (FAX) 



ASSOCIATION 





not receive electronic notice from the Clerk) this 11th day of August, 2008, to: 






2356512.01 

2 





) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 


) 


) 


) 

Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S SHOW CAUSE ORDER TO 

PLAINITFF REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S RULE 26 DISCLOSURES 

Defendants, by and though counsel, file this Response to the Court’s Show Cause Order 

to Plaintiff Regarding his insufficient Rule 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures. On July 22, 2008, the Court 

granted defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Compliance with Rule 26 and ordered the 

plaintiff to supplement his Rule 26(a)(1)(A) disclosures by July 30, 2008. See, Doc. No. 103. 

The Court also ordered the plaintiff to file a pleading on or before August 13, 2008 to show 

cause as to why he should not be required to pay for a portion of the defendants’ reasonable fees 

and expenses incurred with filing the motion to compel. Id. The Order stated that defendants 

would then have until August 24, 2008 to file a response. 

The plaintiff has not supplemented his Rule 26 disclosures in accordance with the Court’s 

Order and failed to file any response to the Court’s show cause order. Any decision to award 

costs and fees related to this motion lies within the sound discretion of the Court. Despite the 

plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the Court’s mandate, the defendants take no position on the 

issue and leave the matter to the Court’s discretion. 

2360310.01 










(913) 451-3355 

(913) 451-3361 (FAX) 






(816) 421-3355 

(816) 374-0509 (FAX) 



ASSOCIATION 











2360310.01 

2 


IN THE UNITED STATES COURT 

DISTRICT OF KANSAS 


) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Case No. 2:07-cv-02146-CM 

) 

U.S. BANCORP and ) 


) 

Defendants. ) 

PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’ RULE 59 RESPONSE 

Comes now the plaintiff Samuel K. Lipari appearing pro se and makes the following answer to the 

defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment. 

1. The plaintiff sought to stay proceedings in this action pending appeal. 

2. The defendants were unsuccessful in getting the appeal dismissed. See exb. 1 August 11 Order of 

the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

3. This action is the same matter in controversy before the appellate court by virtue of being the 

concurrent Missouri state court proceeding improperly removed to federal court during federal jurisdiction 

over all pendant state claims in the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which now has reacquired 

appellate jurisdiction over the matter. 

In Little Rock School District v. Armstrong, No. 02-3867EA (8th Cir., 2004) the Eighth Circuit 

was required to determine if a “mandamus proceeding in 1987 involved the same ‘matter in controversy’ as 

the present questions before the court for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(2). The court’s analysis would 

find that because the state law claims are consistent and unchanged (and as yet never ruled on), the present 

action is the same “matter in controversy” as MSCI v. Neoforma et al now on appeal. See exb 1. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

S/ Samuel K. Lipari 

____________________ 

Samuel K. Lipari 


Lee's Summit, MO 64064 

816-365-1306 

saml@medicalsupplychain.com 

Pro se 

1 



I certify I have sent a copy to the undersigned opposing counsel via electronic filing on 8/18/08. 

Mark A. Olthoff, Esq., 

Jay E. Heidrick, Esq. 

Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. 

Twelve Wyandotte Plaza 

120 W. 12th Street 

Kansas City, MO 64105 

via email 

jheidrick@stklaw.com 

molthoff@stklaw.com 

ademarea@stklaw.com 


____________________ 


2 


FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

August 11, 2008 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court 

MEDICAL SUPPLY CHAIN, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

No. 08-3187 

NEOFORMA, INC, et al., 

Defendants - Appellees, 

------------------------------ 


Interested Party- Appellant. 

ORDER 

The court reserves judgment on the motion to dismiss filed by the appellees. 

The matter will be referred to the panel assigned to hear this appeal on the merits. 

Briefing on the merits shall proceed. The appellant shall file his opening brief 

within 40 days of the date of this order. Subsequent briefing shall proceed in 

Exb. 1 


accordance with the schedule set forth in the Tenth Circuit Rules. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Ellen Rich Reiter 

Deputy Clerk/Jurisdictional Attorney 

2 





) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Case No. 2:07-cv-02146-CM 

) 



) 

Defendants. ) 

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS ASSERTION SHOW CAUSE 

ORDER OVER DISCOVERY PRODUCTION HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH 

Comes now the plaintiff Samuel K. Lipari appearing pro se and makes the following response to 

defendants’ assertion the plaintiff has failed to comply with this court’s show cause order. 

1. The plaintiff sought to obtain instruction from the defendants regarding what additional 

disclosures were required: 

From: Samuel Lipari [mailto:Saml@MedicalSupplyLine.com] 

Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 8:25 AM 

To: Jay Heidrick 

Subject: First set of Interrogatories 

Jay, I am under the impression I have already complied with your 

requests Will you send me the original request so I can comply with the 

Magistrate order. Thanks, S~ 

Subject: Re: First set of Interrogatories 

Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:09 AM 

From: Samuel Lipari 

To: Jay Heidrick 

Hi Jay, any request you feel I have not complied with and that the Magistrate 

ordered. I already have the paragraph numbers from the order but need to know 

what specific request you feel I have not complied with. The settlement brief and 

exhibits I submitted to the magistrate are conclusive but if you need me to extract 

the information I will. Best regards, S~ 

See exb. 1 email to defendants. 

2. The defendants only responded: 

“On 7/14/08 9:56 PM, "Jay Heidrick" wrote: 

Sam- 

Are you wanting the original interrogatories I sent you” 


1 


And in response to the plaintiff’s further clarification: 

“Subject: FW: Lipari v. US Bank... 

Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 8:40 AM 

From: Jay Heidrick 

To: Samuel Lipari Saml@MedicalSupplyChain.com 

Cc: Jay Heidrick jheidrick@stklaw.com 

Conversation: Lipari v. US Bank... 

Sam- 

Per your request, attached are the Interrogatories and Requests for Production we served. The 

deficiencies in your responses were outlined in the Memorandum that accompanied our Motion to 

Compel. You should have a copy of that document, but I'll resend if necessary. Let me know. 

Thanks. 

Jay “ 


3. The plaintiff’s responses to the interrogatories are the plaintiff’s responses in full. A 

misunderstanding that persists despite the plaintiff’s repeated briefing and the clearly stated 

averments of his complaint is that the emails are the written and signed contract between the parties 

for US Bank and US Bancorp to provide escrow accounts. That is why everyone receiving the email 

from Kabbes has a signed copy of the agreement. The emails were required to be preserved by the 

defendants after receiving notice in the original case management conference from 2003. Instead 

they committed spoliation and now have only the documents produced by the plaintiffs. 

4. The defendants have not produced any of their Rule 26 required disclosure documents or witness 

information and have also failed to produce documents specifically requested by the plaintiff (see 

exb. 3) using frivolous assertions of protective orders this court refuses to rule on in order to 

covertly grant the defendants the immunity from Rule 26 this court cannot lawfully give. 

4. The signed document the defendants are demanding is actually one of the ten escrow deposit 

agreements the complaint expressly states were sent out to the candidates on the approval of Kabbes 

but then US Bancorp subsequently repudiated their agreement to provide escrows, as the complaint 

avers no deposits were ever made. This is the blank document furnished the defendants in the 

plaintiff’s Rule 26 production as proof of the plaintiff’s complaint. See exb 4. 

5. The defendants having destroyed their email in deliberate spoliation then sought and fraudulently 

procured sanctions against the plaintiff for producing Rule 26 discovery and now seek to have the 

2 


plaintiff sanctioned for not producing a signed deposit agreement when the complaint alleges the 

deposits were never made. 

6. The plaintiff had originally sought an injunction in 2002 requiring the defendants to accept the 

deposits and to receive the $6000 fee from the plaintiff but the defendants prevailed and have used 

the denial of the injunction to fraudulently procure subsequent rulings sanctioning and denigrating 

the plaintiff. 

7. This court does not have jurisdiction over concurrent action state claims that were erroneously 

removed from Independence, Missouri and currently the court has lost jurisdiction over the federal 

action where these state claims are pendant due to the appeal in Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v. US 

Bancorp et al. 



____________________ 




816-365-1306 


Pro se 









via email 




3 



____________________ 


4 


Monday, August 18, 2008 9:06 AM 

Subject: Re: First set of Interrogatories 

Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:09 AM 


To: Jay Heidrick 

Hi Jay, any request you feel I have not complied with and that the Magistrate 

ordered. I already have the paragraph numbers from the order but need to know 

what specific request you feel I have not complied with. The settlement brief and 

exhibits I submitted to the magistrate are conclusive but if you need me to extract 

the information I will. Best regards, S~ 

On 7/14/08 9:56 PM, "Jay Heidrick" wrote: 

Sam- 

Are you wanting the original interrogatories I sent you 

!Jay Heidrick 

Attorney At Law 

Shughart Thomson & Kilroy 



Overland Park, KS 66210 

http://www.stklaw.com tel: 816-691-3743 

fax: 816-222-0519 


 

Page 1 of 3 

T Exb. 1 

08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma e Volume XV 5656

! 

From: Samuel Lipari [mailto:Saml@MedicalSupplyLine.com] 

Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 8:25 AM 

To: Jay Heidrick 

Subject: First set of Interrogatories 

Jay, I am under the impression I have already complied with your 

requests Will you send me the original request so I can comply with the 

Magistrate order. Thanks, S~ 

********************PRIVATE AND 

CONFIDENTIAL******************** 

This electronic message transmission and any files transmitted with it, are 

a communication from the law firm of Shughart Thomson Kilroy, P.C. 

This message contains information protected by the attorney/client 

privilege and is confidential or otherwise the exclusive property of the 

intended recipient or Shughart Thomson Kilroy. This information is 

solely for the use of the individual or entity that is the intended recipient. 

If you are not the designated recipient, or the person responsible for 

delivering the communication to its intended recipient, please be aware 

that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is 

strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in 

error, please notify by telephone (816-421-3355), collect or by electronic 

mail (solutions@stklaw.com ) and promptly destroy the original 

transmission. Thank you for your assistance. 

NOTICE: The Missouri Bar and Missouri Supreme Court require all 

Missouri attorneys to notify e-mail recipients that e-mail is not a secure 

Page 2 of 3 


method of communication, that it may be copied and held by any 

computer through which it passes, and persons not participating in the 

communication may intercept the communication. Should you wish to 

discontinue this method of communication, please advise, and no further 

e-mail communication will be sent. 

Page 3 of 3 



Subject: FW: Lipari v. US Bank... 

Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 8:40 AM 

From: Jay Heidrick 

To: Samuel Lipari Saml@MedicalSupplyChain.com 

Cc: Jay Heidrick jheidrick@stklaw.com 

Conversation: Lipari v. US Bank... 

Per your request, attached are the Interrogatories and Requests for Production we served. The deficiencies in 

your responses were outlined in the Memorandum that accompanied our Motion to Compel. You should have 

a copy of that document, but I'll resend if necessary. Let me know. 

Thanks. 

Jay 

http://www.stklaw.com 

Jay Heidrick 






tel: 816-691-3743 

fax: 816-222-0519 


From: Jay Heidrick 

Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:03 PM 

To: 'Samuel Lipari' 

Cc: Mark Olthoff; Jay Heidrick 

Subject: Lipari v. US Bank... 

Sam- 

Sam- 

I attach Defendants' First Requests for Production and First Interrogatories to Plaintiff. Please let me know if 

you have any questions. 

Thanks. 

Jay Heidrick 

Page 1 of 2 

Exb. 2 


********************PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL******************** 

This electronic message transmission and any files transmitted with it, are a communication from the law firm of Shughart 

Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. This message contains information protected by the attorney/client privilege and is confidential or 

otherwise the exclusive property of the intended recipient or Shughart Thomson & Kilroy. This information is solely for the 

use of the individual or entity that is the intended recipient. If you are not the designated recipient, or the person responsible 

for delivering the communication to its intended recipient, please be aware that any dissemination, distribution or copying of 

this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify by telephone 

(816-421-3355), collect or by electronic mail (solutions@stklaw.com ) and promptly destroy the original transmission. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

NOTICE: The Missouri Bar and Missouri Supreme Court require all Missouri attorneys to notify e-mail recipients that e- 

mail is not a secure method of communication, that it may be copied and held by any computer through which it passes, and 

persons not participating in the communication may intercept the communication. Should you wish to discontinue this 

method of communication, please advise, and no further e-mail communication will be sent. 

Page 2 of 2 


Medical Supply Chain 

Empowering Health Systems, 

Optimizing Supply Chain Results! 

March 10, 2008 

Dear Jay, 

I will be happy to confer with you about complying with my discovery production request at your earliest 

opportunity. I am available every weekday between 8am and 4pm except that the noon hour is usually spent away 

from my office. With prior notice I could take your call instead of lunch. 

I think the issue you raised with Aikens v. Deluxe Financial Services, Inc., 217 F.R.D. 533 (D.Kan., 2003) is a 

misperception over the reasonable particularity requirement of Rule 34. This overly generalized request form was 

avoided by my request, which uses “all documents related”, and “all records related” as a modifier to a sufficiently 

particularized event or occurrence and the persons and time frame involved where known. See footnote 11 of 

Clearone Communications, Inc. v. Chiang et al Utah Dist. Court Case No: 2:07cv00037TC 

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc2007cv0037-628 which also discusses Aikens. 

I still seek the documents and records I requested and in electronic form. I would be more receptive to modifying 

my requests if you produced the two documents your professional responsibility and diligence required before 

signing motions in this action - the written contract for escrow accounts and the written contract for a financial line 

of credit secured with part of each escrow account. 

My proposed order addressed provisions for you to redact privileged information and a line-by-line privilege log 

for later in camera review. Since this is the same in Missouri and Kansas, I think it is a good procedure. 

I knew, as did you that these issues would arise and attempted to address them in our case management order where 

we had Magistrate Waxse available. After your sole lost weekend in this case, you, Mark and Andrew decided not 

to further brief our dispute over this issue prior to the case management conference. I cannot help but be reminded 

of Andrew telling Magistrate Waxse that the previous case management report did not have to be in the correct 

form specified under local rule by Judge Waxse because the case would be dismissed. 

I fear more people are without healthcare each day because you have recently made a similar assurance to your 

client US Bancorp and that assurance is not based on law. 

Sincerely, 

Samuel Lipari 




Phone: 816.365.1306 

Saml@MedicalSupplyChain.com 

www.MedicalSupplyChain.com 

Exb. 3 



Subject: Re: Documents on CD for Rule 26 disclosures... 

Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 11:19 AM 


Reply-To: Samuel Lipari 

To: Jay Heidrick jheidrick@stklaw.com 

Conversation: Documents on CD for Rule 26 disclosures... 

Jay, 

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I have not password protected any of the files. I think we are using two 

different meanings of searchable, the table of contents leads you to documents by keywords. Some are 

scanned images where keyword searching, cutting and pasting is not possible. Some were made into pdfs 

with the software I could afford, not Adobe and you have to go into the properties section to alter or save. 

You are no doubt inconvenienced but that is the software I have and the form I have created and store the 

pdfs in the normal course of business. You on the other hand give me only the paper versions of MS Word 

documents for the few docs you have produced in discovery even though I have requested only electronic 

documents. I hope this helps. Best regards, S~ 

Samuel Lipari 




Phone: 816.365.1306 



This message is intended solely for the designated recipient, which may contain privileged or confidential 

information and may be subject to confidentiality agreement. Access to this email by any other recipient is 

unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken to 

be in reliance on its content is prohibited and may be unlawful. In no event shall this material be read, 

used, copied, reproduced, stored or retained by anyone other than the named recipient, except with the 

express consent of the sender or the named recipient. If you have received this message in error, please 

notify the sender immediately by reply and destroy this communication. 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Jay Heidrick 

To: Samuel Lipari 

Cc: Jay Heidrick 

Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:54 AM 

Subject: Documents on CD for Rule 26 disclosures... 

Sam- 

In your response to our Motion to Compel, you indicated that the CD of documents you provided were 

searchable. That is not the case. The files are password protected that prevent any type of OCR, re-printing 

as a .pdf and searching. Please provide the password that will allow us to change the security setting for 

these files and make them searchable. Or please provide us with a new CD that allows OCR and searchable 

functions. Thanks. 

Jay 

Page 1 of 2 

Exb. 4 


http://www.stklaw.com 

Jay Heidrick 






tel: 816-691-3743 

fax: 816-222-0519 


********************PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL******************** 

This electronic message transmission and any files transmitted with it, are a communication from the law firm of Shughart 

Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. This message contains information protected by the attorney/client privilege and is confidential 

or otherwise the exclusive property of the intended recipient or Shughart Thomson & Kilroy. This information is solely for 

the use of the individual or entity that is the intended recipient. If you are not the designated recipient, or the person 

responsible for delivering the communication to its intended recipient, please be aware that any dissemination, distribution 

or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please 

notify by telephone (816-421-3355), collect or by electronic mail (solutions@stklaw.com ) and promptly destroy the 

original transmission. Thank you for your assistance. 

NOTICE: The Missouri Bar and Missouri Supreme Court require all Missouri attorneys to notify e-mail recipients that e- 

mail is not a secure method of communication, that it may be copied and held by any computer through which it passes, 

and persons not participating in the communication may intercept the communication. Should you wish to discontinue this 

method of communication, please advise, and no further e-mail communication will be sent. 

Page 2 of 2 


DJW/bh 




v. 


Plaintiff, 

Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION 

No. 07-2146-CM-DJW 

NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

TO THE PLAINTIFF SAMUEL K. LIPARI: 

On July 22, 2008, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order (doc. 103) granting in part 

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 26(a)(1) (doc. 68). In that Order, the Court 

directed Plaintiff to serve on Defendants an amended Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) witness disclosure 

statement on or before July 30, 2008. In addition, the Court directed Plaintiff to serve a 

supplemental Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) document disclosure statement or amended Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) 

document disclosures by that same date. Defendants have informed the Court through a pleading 

filed on August 18, 2008 (doc. 111) that Plaintiff has not served any such disclosures or disclosure 

statements on Defendants. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Samuel K. Lipari is required to show cause to 

United States District Judge Carlos Murguia in a pleading filed by August 27, 2008, why this case 

should not be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civile Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) 

for failing to comply with the Court’s July 22, 2008 Order (doc. 103). 



A copy of this Order shall be sent to Plaintiff Samuel K. Lipari by regular mail and 

certified mail, return receipt requested. 

Dated in Kansas City, Kansas on this 18th day of August 2008. 




cc: 


2 


DJW/bh 




v. 


Plaintiff, 

Defendants. 

ORDER 

CIVIL ACTION 

No. 07-2146-CM-DJW 

On July 22, 2008, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order (doc. 103) granting in part and 

denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 26(a)(1) (doc. 68). In that 

Order, the Court directed Plaintiff, inter alia, to show cause, on or before August 13, 2008, why he 

should not be required to pay a portion of the reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses that 

Defendants incurred in making their Motion to Compel. 1 Plaintiff has filed no response to the 

Court’s Show Cause Order. 

In light of the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be required to pay a portion of the 

reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses that Defendants incurred in connection with their Motion 

to Compel. To aid the Court is determining the proper amount of the award, Defendants’ counsel 

shall file, by August 27, 2008, an affidavit itemizing the attorney’s fees and expenses that 

Defendants incurred in bringing their Motion to Compel, along with a pleading setting forth any 

argument counsel desires to make regarding the proper amount to be apportioned. Plaintiff shall 

1 The Court’s Order was made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 37(a)(5)(C), which provides that 

a when a motion to compel is granted in part and denied in the party, a court may “apportion the 

reasonable expenses for the motion.” 


have until September 10, 2008 to file a response thereto. Thereafter, the Court will issue an order 

specifying the amount of the award and the time for payment. 






cc: 


2 





) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Case No. 2:07-cv-02146-CM 

) 



) 

Defendants. ) 

28 U.S.C. § 144_AFFIDAVIT OF PREJUDICE 

Comes now the plaintiff Samuel K. Lipari appearing pro se and makes the following affidavit of 

prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 144. 

The plaintiff timely calls the court’s attention to its own prejudice when the court disregarded 

notice filed on August 18, 2008 that the appeal in this same matter or controversy has not been dismissed. 

The magistrate Hon. Judge Waxse has issued orders at the instruction of the trial court Hon. Judge 

Murguia that disregard the loss of jurisdiction by the appeal. 

The orders corruptly continue what was revealed by the defendants motion served at 

approximately 6:30 am this morning to be the court’s scheme to not rule on the defendants frivolous 

protective orders and to dismiss the plaintiff’s cause for interrogatories and documents that the plaintiff 

submitted to the defendants in discovery. 

The court has meanwhile demonstrated its manifest prejudice and bias against the plaintiff by Hon. 

Judge Waxse and Hon. Judge Murguia jointly participating in this plan with disregard to their oaths of 

office and duty to their own court to be fair and unbiased revealed in an order filed by the magistrate on this 

day sanctioning the plaintiff in participation with the defendant counsel’s extrinsic fraud over the response 

of the plaintiff regarding the signed agreement to provide escrow accounts in the form of emails as 

recognized under Missouri and Federal statute and the lie regarding the failure to provide the documents in 

the plaintiff’s Rule 26 disclosure. 

This court does not have jurisdiction over the concurrent state claims filed in the State of Missouri 

that were in error removed and transferred to this court. 

The court was given notice it had irrefutably lost jurisdiction when the plaintiff timely appealed 

the striking of the plaintiff’s Rule 59 Motion in MSCI v. Neoforma et al. 

1 


The plaintiff has been or will be irreparably harmed by the bias and prejudice of Hon. Judge 

Waxse and Hon. Judge Murguia. 

Signature _____________________________ 

Date_____________ 

_________________________ 

Notary 

Subscribed and sworn before me on 

Date_______________________ 

My commission expires: 

Date_______________________ 



____________________ 




816-365-1306 


Pro se 









via email 





____________________ 


2 





) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 


) 


) 


) 

Defendants. ) 

MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Defendants, by and through counsel Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., move this Court 

for an Order requiring the plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed (or 

other sanctions levied) under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) for his failure to comply with the Court’s July 8, 

2008 discovery Order. In support of this Motion, defendants state as follows: 

1. On July 8, 2008, the Court ordered plaintiff, within 14 days of the Order, to serve 

supplemental responses to defendants’ First Interrogatories Nos. 1, 3, 5-14, 16, 17 and 21; and to 

produce all documents responsive to defendants’ First Request for Production. The Court also 

ordered the plaintiff, within 21 days of the Order, to show cause why he should not be required 

to pay the reasonable fees and expenses the defendants incurred for their Motion to Compel. 

See, Memorandum and Order, Doc. # 96. 

2. On July 10, 2008, plaintiff filed an Objection to Magistrate’s Order, asking for 

District Court review of the July 8, 2008 Order. See, Doc. # 97. But the plaintiff did not seek to 

stay the Order under D. Kan. Rule 72.1.4(d). 

3. Simply filing an Objection to Magistrate’s Order does not relieve a party’s 

obligation to comply with the order, absent an Order to Stay under D. Kan. Rule 72. See, Kelly 

2360876.01 


v. Market USA, 2003 WL 21089075, *2 (D. Kan. 2003) (holding that pro se plaintiff’s refusal to 

comply with the magistrate’s order to produce discovery was unexcused even though the 

plaintiff had filed an objection to the order). A copy of the Kelly decision is attached as Exhibit 

A. 

4. The plaintiff has not produced any documents or supplemental responses in 

accordance with the Court’s Order, and has also failed to respond to the Court’s Show Cause 

Order. 

5. Rule 37(b)(2)(A) states that if a party fails to comply with a court’s discovery 

order, the court may levy sanctions on the party, including dismissal of the action. Because the 

plaintiff has failed to comply with the July 8, 2008 Order, the defendants request the Court order 

the plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed or other sanctions issued 

pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A). 

WHEREFORE, the above stated reasons, the defendants request the Court issue an Order 

requiring the plaintiff to show cause as to why this matter should not be dismissed or other 

sanctions issued against the plaintiff for his failure to comply with the Court’s July 8, 2008 

Order. Defendants also request all other relief to which they are justly entitled. 









(913) 451-3355 

(913) 451-3361 (FAX) 


2 







(816) 421-3355 

(816) 374-0509 (FAX) 



ASSOCIATION 












3 


Exhibit A 

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 1 

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2003 WL 21089075 (D.Kan.) 

Kelly v. Market USA 

D.Kan.,2003. 

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. 

United States District Court,D. Kansas. 

Lawrence L. KELLY, Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARKET USA, Defendant. 

No. 01-4169-SAC. 

April 11, 2003. 

Laurie E. Leader, Chicago-Kent Law Offices, 

Chicago, IL, Benoit M.J. Swinnen, Topeka, KS, 

James L. Wisler, James L. Wisler Law Offices, 

Lawrence, KS, for Defendant. 


SAM A. CROW, District Senior Judge. 

*1 This case comes before the court on plaintiff's 

objections to a magistrate judge's order regarding 

discovery (Dk.59), a magistrate judge's subsequent 

report and recommendation (Dk.67) and plaintiff's 

objection to that report and recommendation. 

(Dk.70). 

The factual background of this case is accurately set 

forth in the magistrate judge's subsequent report and 

recommendation (Dk.67), and will not be repeated 

herein. Suffice it to say that plaintiff, having been 

ordered to comply with outstanding discovery 

requests by defendant, refused to do so. Defendant 

then moved to dismiss the case as a sanction for 

plaintiff's discovery abuse. In his report and 

recommendation, the magistrate judge found the 

extreme sanction of dismissal warranted, in the event 

this court finds no error in the original order requiring 

plaintiff to comply with the outstanding discovery 

requests. 

Standard of Review 

“De novo review is statutorily and constitutionally 

required when written objections to a magistrate's 

report are timely filed with the district 

court.”Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 

1167 (10th Cir.1991) (citations omitted).Rule 72(b) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a 

district judge to “make a de novo determination upon 

the record, ..., of any portion of the magistrate judge's 

disposition to which specific written objection has 

been made in accordance with this rule.”Those parts 

of the report and recommendation to which there has 

been no objection are taken as true and judged on the 

applicable law. See Campbell v. United States 

District Court for the Northern Dist. of California, 

501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,419 U.S. 

879 (1974); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d at 

1167 (holding that “[i]n the absence of timely 

objection, the district court may review a magistrate's 

report under any standard it deems appropriate”). The 

district court has considerable judicial discretion in 

choosing what reliance to place on the magistrate 

judge's findings and recommendations. See Andrews 

v. Deland, 943 F.2d 1162, 1170 (10th Cir.1991) 

(citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 

(1980)), cert. denied,502 U.S. 1110 (1992). When 

review is de novo, the district court is “ ‘free to 

follow ... or wholly ... ignore’ “ the magistrate judge's 

recommendation, but it “ ‘should make an 

independent determination of the issues' “ without 

giving “ ‘any special weight to the prior’ “ 

recommendation.Andrews v. Deland, 943 F.2d at 

1170 (quoting Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow 

Industries, 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir.1988)). In 

short, the district court may accept, reject, or modify 

the magistrate judge's findings, or recommit the 

matter to the magistrate with instructions. See28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (1994). 

Analysis 

Plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's report 

and recommendation are far from specific. See Dk. 

70 (alleging that the court has been operating 

“fraudulently,” that “defendant has no defense,” 

citing the Tenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964.) In fact, they fail to reference the magistrate 

judge's report and recommendation, or any portion of, 

whatsoever. Had plaintiff's pleading not been 

captioned “plaintiff's response to report and 

recommendation,” the court would not have known 

that plaintiff's statements were in response to that 

document. 

© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 




*2 The court has reviewed the facts regarding the 

October 17, 2002 order, granting in large part 

defendant's motion to compel, and finds no error in 

that ruling. The court has reviewed plaintiff's 

objections to that order (Dk.59), and finds them 

lacking in specificity. Plaintiff's complaints that the 

course of discovery is “fraud,” that his “private 

matters are [his] private matters,” and that defendant 

has no right to the discovery sought are meritless. 

Plaintiff is a frequent litigant in this court, see Kelly 

v. Rogers, et. al, NO. 00-4175-RDR, Order of Dec. 

11, 2001, at 1, n. 1, and is bound to abide by the same 

procedural rules as are litigants represented by 

counsel. As this court recently stated in another case, 

a pro se litigant is required to follow the same rules 

of procedure as any other litigant. 

“A pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed 

liberally and held to a less stringent standard than 

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”Hall v. 

Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991). A pro 

se litigant, however, is not relieved from following 

the same rules of procedure as any other 

litigant.Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 

(10th Cir.1994), cert. denied,513 U.S. 1090 

(1995).“At the same time, we do not believe it is the 

proper function of the district court to assume the role 

of advocate for the pro se litigant.”Hall v. Bellmon, 

935 F.2d at 1110;see Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 

927 F.2d 1156, 1159 (10th Cir.1991) (“Despite 

liberal construction afforded pro se pleadings, the 

court will not construct arguments or theories for the 

plaintiff in the absence of any discussion of those 

issues”). Nor is the court to “supply additional factual 

allegations to round out a plaintiff's 

complaint.”Whitney v. State of New Mexico, 113 F.3d 

1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir.1997). 

McCormick v. Farrar, 2002 WL 31314681, *2 

(D.Kan.2002). 

Plaintiff was ordered to produce and respond to 

discovery, yet failed to do so. Plaintiff was not 

relieved from complying with the disputed order 

merely because he had filed an objection to it, 

seeFed.R.Civ.P. 72; D. Kan. R. 72.1.4, and made no 

application for a stay of the magistrate's nondispositive 

order regarding discovery. Plaintiff's 

failure to comply with the terms of the order is 

unexcused. Accordingly, plaintiff's objections to the 

magistrate judge's order of October 17, 2002 (Dk.59) 

are overruled. Plaintiff was properly ordered to 

respond to defendant's discovery requests, and has 

failed without good cause to do so. 

The court thus addresses the issue whether the 

sanction of dismissal with prejudice is warranted, as 

addressed in the magistrate judge's report and 

recommendation (Dk.67), and plaintiff's objection to 

that document (Dk.70). 

In all respects, the magistrate judge's report and 

recommendation fully, fairly and accurately sets forth 

the law, findings and facts relevant to this appeal. 

Plaintiff has intentionally chosen to ignore discovery 

requests and orders related to them, prejudicing the 

defendant and preventing the orderly administration 

of justice. For all the reasons set forth in detail in the 

report and recommendation, this court finds it 

appropriate to levy the most severe sanction of 

dismissal with prejudice, unless plaintiff provides to 

defendant within 15 days of this order all discovery 

which was the subject of the October 17, 2002 order. 

Accordingly, the court accepts and adopts the report 

and recommendation of the magistrate judge dated 

February 19, 2003. 

*3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's 

objections to a magistrate judge's order regarding 

discovery (Dk.59) are overruled, that plaintiff's 

objection (Dk.70) to the report and recommendation 

of Magistrate Judge Bostwick is overruled, that the 

report and recommendation (Dk.67) is accepted and 

adopted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall 

provide to defendant and to Magistrate Judge 

Sebelius, to whom this case has been transferred, 

within 15 days of this order all discovery which was 

the subject of the October 17, 2002 order. In the 

event plaintiff fails to do so in the determination of 

Magistrate Judge Sebelius, this case shall be 

dismissed, with prejudice, instanter, and without 

further notice or hearing. 

D.Kan.,2003. 

Kelly v. Market USA 

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2003 WL 21089075 

(D.Kan.) 

END OF DOCUMENT 







DJW/bh 




v. 


Plaintiff, 

Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION 

No. 07-2146-CM-DJW 

SECOND NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

TO THE PLAINTIFF SAMUEL K. LIPARI: 

This case is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Order to Show cause (doc. 118) 

relating to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s July 8, 2008 discovery order (doc. 96). The 

case is also before the Court based on information the parties have provided the Court via e-mail 

regarding preparation of the parties’ proposed pretrial order. 

I. Defendants’ Motion for Order to Show Cause Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply 

with the Court’s July 8, 2008 Order 

Defendants move the Court for an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this action 

should not be dismissed, or other sanctions imposed, based on Plaintiff’s asserted failure to comply 

with a discovery order issued by the Court on July 8, 2008 (doc. 96). In that Order, the Court 

granted Defendants’ Motion to Compel and directed Plaintiff to (1) serve supplemental responses 

to certain of Defendants’ First Interrogatories, and (2) produce all documents responsive to 

Defendants’ First Request for Production. On July 10, 2008, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Order 


(doc. 97), asking the District Judge to review the July 8, 2008 Order. Plaintiff, however, filed no 

motion to stay the Order pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 72.1.4(d). 1 

As Defendants point out, the mere filing of an objection to a Magistrate Judge’s order, 

without applying for a stay, does not relieve a party of the obligation to comply with the order. 2 

Thus, in this case, Plaintiff was not relieved of the obligation to comply with the Court’s July 8, 

2008 Order. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), a court may impose a variety 

of sanctions against a party for failing to obey a discovery order, including dismissing the action in 

whole or in part. 3 

The Court finds that Defendants’ Motion for Order to Show Cause is well taken. The Court 

therefore grants Defendants’ Motion and directs Plaintiff to show cause to the District Judge, in a 

pleading filed by September 8, 2008, why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice, or other 

sanctions imposed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), for failure to comply 

with the Court’s July 8, 2008 Order regarding discovery. 

II. 

Failure to Participate in the Preparation of a Joint Proposed Pretrial Order 

The pretrial conference is presently scheduled for August 28, 2008. The parties were 

directed to prepare a joint proposed pretrial order for submission to the Magistrate Judge by August 

1 D. Kan. Rule 72.1.4(d) provides that “[a]pplication for stay of a magistrate judge’s order 

pending review of objections made thereto shall first be made to the magistrate judge.” 

2 See Kelly v. Market USA, No. 01-4169-SAC, 2003 WL 21089075, at *2 (D. Kan. Apr. 11, 

2003) (“Plaintiff was ordered to produce and respond to discovery, yet failed to do so. Plaintiff was 

not relieved from complying with the disputed order merely because he had filed an objection to it 

. . ., and made no application for a stay of the magistrate’s non-dispositive order regarding discovery. 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the terms of the order is unexcused.”) (citations omitted). 

3 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). 

2 


21, 2008. 4 On August 21, 2008, Defendants’ counsel informed the Court via e-mail that Plaintiff 

had failed to participate in the preparation of a joint proposed pretrial order. Defendants’ counsel 

stated that they had repeatedly submitted a draft pretrial order to Plaintiff and sought his input as 

required by local rule. Counsel reported that despite their efforts, they had not received any 

comments or input from Plaintiff as to the proposed order. As a result, Defendants could only 

submit their version of a proposed pretrial order with the following sections left blank: Plaintiff’s 

factual contentions, Plaintiff’s theories of recovery, essential elements of Plaintiff’s theories of 

recovery, and Plaintiff’s damages. 

Plaintiff subsequently e-mailed the Court with his own version of the proposed pretrial order, 

which he admitted is incomplete. Plaintiff explained in his e-mail as follows: 

Attached is my version of the pretrial order. It is incomplete because this court lost 

jurisdiction at the filing of the notice of appeal on July 11. Every subsequent order 

has been void. The plaintiff's notice of the lack of jurisdiction and controlling law 

is in the first section of the attached proposed plan. 

Plaintiff’s proposed pretrial order fails to include any factual contentions. It also fails to 

provide an itemized list of his damages, including the dollar amounts sought. 

Based on the above, it appears to the Court that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his obligation 

to participate in the preparation of a joint proposed pretrial order. Pursuant to the Court’s July 31, 

2008 Order, which amended the initial Scheduling Order, the parties were to prepare a “proposed 

joint pretrial order” 5 for submission to the Court prior to the pretrial conference. The Scheduling 

Order required that the proposed pretrial order be “in the form available on the court’s website 

4 

See Orders Amending Scheduling Order (doc. 108 & 109). 

5 

Order Amending Scheduling Order (doc. 108) (emphasis added). 

3 


(www.ksd.uscourts.gov).” 6 D. Kan. Rule 16.2(a) also requires that the parties submit “a proposed 

final pretrial order in the prescribed form.” 7 

Rule 16.2(a) explains that the parties have an obligation to confer and jointly prepare the 

proposed pretrial order. The Rule states: 

The parties have joint responsibility to attempt in good faith to formulate an agreed 

order which the judge can sign at the conference. If the parties disagree on any 

particulars, they are each to submit proposed language on the points in controversy, 

for the judge to rule on at the conference. To attempt in good faith to formulate an 

agreed order means more than mailing or faxing a form or letter to the opposing 

party. It requires that the parties in good faith converse, confer, compare views, 

consult and deliberate, or in good faith attempt to do so. 8 

The Court’s “prescribed form” for the proposed pretrial provides detailed instructions to the 

parties as to the preparation of a joint proposed pretrial order and requires that the parties make a 

“joint effort” to submit a single proposed order. 9 The instructions are as follows: 

Before the pretrial conference, the parties must confer, draft, and timely submit to 

the court a proposed pretrial order in accordance with the scheduling order and D. 

Kan. Rule 16. The proposed pretrial order is to be a joint effort of all parties. The 

parties have an equal obligation to cooperate fully in drafting the pretrial order and 

to submit an agreed order that the judge can sign at the pretrial conference. It is 

essential that each party’s factual contentions and legal theories be included. If the 

parties disagree on any particulars, they shall submit a single proposed order with 

bracketed notations revealing the nature of the disagreement in sufficient detail to 

enable the court to resolve the dispute at the conference. Submission of separate 

orders is not acceptable. 10 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5679 

6 Scheduling Order (doc. 50), 4.b. 

7 D. Kan. Rule 16.2(a). 

8 

Id. 

9 The form for the proposed pretrial order is found on the Court’s website at 

www.ksd.uscourts.gov. 

10 

See Pretrial Order Form at www.ksd.uscourts.gov (emphasis in original). 

4

Here, the parties have submitted separate orders, and, based on the information provided in 

the parties’ August 21, 2008 e-mails, it appears that Plaintiff has failed to cooperate in the process 

of preparing a joint proposed order. If that is indeed the case, Plaintiff is subject to sanctions. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), a court “may issue any just orders, including 

those authorized by Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(vii)” when a party “is substantially unprepared to 

participate –– or does not participate in good faith –– in the [pretrial] conference” or when the party 

“fails to obey a scheduling order or other pretrial order.” 11 As noted above, dismissal of the case in 

whole or part is one of the sanctions authorized under Rule 37(b)(2)(A). 

In light of the foregoing, the Court directs Plaintiff to show cause, in a pleading filed by 

September 8, 2008, why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice, or other sanctions 

imposed, pursuant to Rules 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(A), based on Plaintiff’s failure to participate in the 

preparation of a joint proposed pretrial order. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Order to Show Cause (doc. 

118) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Samuel K. Lipari is required to show cause to 

United States District Judge Carlos Murguia, in a pleading filed by September 8, 2008, why this 

case should not be dismissed with prejudice, or other sanctions imposed, pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) for failure to comply with the Court’s July 8, 2008 Order (doc. 96), 

and/or pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(A) for failure to participate 

in the preparation of a joint proposed pretrial order. 

11 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(B) & (C). 

5 



A copy of this Order shall be sent to Plaintiff Samuel K. Lipari by regular mail and 

certified mail, return receipt requested. 





cc: 


6 





) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Case No. 2:07-cv-02146-CM 

) 



) 

Defendants. ) 

OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE’S ORDERS OF 8/18/08 

Comes now the plaintiff appearing pro se and while objecting to the jurisdiction of this court after 

the notice of appeal, makes the following objection to the orders dated 08/18/2008 requiring the plaintiff to 

show cause and pay fees by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

1. The plaintiff made a pretrial affidavit of bias on August 18, 2008. 

2. The Hon. Judge Carlos Murguia has not yet responded to the affidavit of bias. 

3. The order of 08/20/2008 is by Magistrate Hon. Judge David J. Waxse not the trial judge: 

“08/20/2008 

117 

ORDER regarding 114 Notice and Order to Show Cause. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's reply 

(doc. 113) to Defendants' response (doc. 111) regarding Plaintiff's asserted noncompliance with the 

Court's 7/22/08 Order (doc. 103). Plaintiff's filing of the reply does not relieve Plaintiff of the 

obligation to respond to the Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff shall file his response to the Order to 

Show Cause on or before 8/27/08. Entered by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse on 8/20/08. (This is 

a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) 

(mh) (Entered: 08/20/2008) 

4. The orders were made after the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal in this same matter or controversy, 

divesting this court of jurisdiction. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

The plaintiff has filed an affidavit under 28 USC § 144 over the court’s proceeding to exert 

jurisdiction in a biased and prejudiced manner against the plaintiff despite being given conclusive notice 

that the plaintiff’s appeal has not been dismissed as sought by the defendants (the plaintiff supplied the 

court a copy of the August 11, 2008 Order of the Tenth Circuit) and this court was under the controlling 

1 


law of this circuit deprived of jurisdiction on July 11, 2008. See Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate’s Order 

of 08/20/08. 

The plaintiff has consistently argued that the federal court lacks jurisdiction over his concurrent 

state court action which was erroneously removed from the State of Missouri 16 th Circuit court on the 

grounds of diversity and has only the jurisdiction over these claims as pendant state law claims dismissed 

without prejudice in MSC v. Neoforma, Inc. Case No. 05-2299. However, this court lost jurisdiction over 

this matter in controversy on July 11, 2008 under controlling precedent of the Tenth Circuit in United 

States v. Prows, 448 F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2006) (recognizing the general rule that a notice of appeal 

divests the district court of jurisdiction over substantive claims).” 

This court erroneously continued to exert jurisdiction but on August 11, 2008 the Tenth Circuit 

issued an order in MSCI v Neoforma, Inc. Case No. 08-3187 denying dismissal of the appeal. This court’s 

jurisdiction under Case No. 07-CV-02146-CM-DJW as a removed state court action over 05-2299’s 

pendant state law claims is impacted by the special rule applicable to exclusive jurisdiction over federal 

antitrust claims Holmes Financial Associates, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 33 F.3d 561 (C.A.6 (Tenn.), 

1994) and this court will permanently lose jurisdiction 1) under the exclusive federal jurisdiction rule, 2) 

the reversal of the dismissal of the plaintiff’s federal and pendant claims in 05-2299, and 3) the recognition 

that the removal never had the required complete diversity of citizenship for 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and must be 

remanded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c)’s requirement that “If at any time before final judgment it appears 

that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded”. 

The appeal concerns whether this is the same matter in controversy as MSCI v. Neoforma et al 

Case No. 05-2299 and whether substantive claims related to substantive claims still included in this case 

over the same conduct (aspects of the issues involved in the appeal halting this court under U.S. v. Salzano, 

994 F.Supp. 1321 (D. Kan., 1998) ) were lawfully dismissed in light of the US Supreme Court’s 

overturning of the Tenth Circuit Rule 12(b)(6) standard or practice used by this court in Erickson v. Pardus, 

No. 06-7317 (U.S. 6/4/2007) (2007). This court’s orders subsequent to the July 11, 2008 Notice of Appeal 

are “null and void” under Garcia v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 818 F.2d 713, 721 (10th Cir.1987). 

CONCLUSION 

2 


Whereas the trial judge has not reviewed the plaintiff’s affidavit of prejudice or has not made an 

order regarding that review, under 28 USC § 144 there are no further proceedings in this court and because 

this court lost jurisdiction due to the notice of appeal filed on July 11, 2008, the magistrate’s orders are void 

for want of jurisdiction. 



____________________ 




816-365-1306 


Pro se 









via email 





____________________ 


3 





) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Case No. 2:07-cv-02146-CM 

) 



) 

Defendants. ) 

OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE’S ORDER OF 8/20/08 

Comes now the plaintiff appearing pro se and while objecting to the jurisdiction of this court after 

the notice of appeal, makes the following objection to the order dated 08/20/2008 (Doc. 117) by Magistrate 

Judge David J. Waxse. 


1. The plaintiff made a pretrial affidavit of bias on August 18, 2008. 

2. The Hon. Judge Carlos Murguia has not yet responded to the affidavit of bias. 

3. The Chief Judge of this District Kansas District Court Judge Kathryn H. Vratil recused herself in 

this same matter or controversy 05-cv-02299-CM-GLR (under the matter or controversy standard in Little 

Rock School District v. Armstrong, No. 02-3867EA (8th Cir., 2004) ) on October 20, 2005: 

61 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Carlos Murguia for 

all further proceedings. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil no longer assigned to case. 

(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this 

entry)(ls) (Entered: 10/20/2005) 

5. All Kansas District court judges including the Hon. Judge Carlos Murguia recused themselves in 

the injunctive relief action styled Landrith v. Stanton Hazlet, KS Dist. Case No. 04-2215-DVB to prevent 

the defendants’ disbarment of the plaintiff’s counsel that covered the same conduct as described by the 

petition in 05-cv-02299-CM-GLR. 

6. The order of 08/20/2008 is by Magistrate Hon. Judge David J. Waxse and states: 

“08/20/2008 

117 

ORDER regarding 114 Notice and Order to Show Cause. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's reply 

(doc. 113) to Defendants' response (doc. 111) regarding Plaintiff's asserted noncompliance with the 

Court's 7/22/08 Order (doc. 103). Plaintiff's filing of the reply does not relieve Plaintiff of the 

obligation to respond to the Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff shall file his response to the Order to 

Show Cause on or before 8/27/08. Entered by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse on 8/20/08. (This is 

a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) 

1 


(mh) (Entered: 08/20/2008) 

7. The defendants’ law firm Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. had notice of the petition in Judicial 

Council The Tenth Circuit Case No. 2008-10-372-08 describing the extrinsic fraud scheme to procure the 

dismissal of the plaintiff’s contract based claims through a fraudulent Motion to Compel production of 

documents already produced and to answer interrogatories more fully to include addresses of witnesses 

known to the defendants and which the plaintiff was himself seeking in discovery. See letter of disclosure 

to Jay E. Heidrick atch. 1 and atch 1 Part B Petition with exhibits Case No. 2008-10-372-08 including exb 

36. 

“64. The defendants’ law firm is aware of the changes made in the judicial council’s treatment of 

judicial misconduct complaints yet they still file pleadings that contain extrinsic fraud believing the 

respondent will grant them. 

See Exb 36. 

65. The US Bank and US Bancorp defendants are currently arguing before the respondent in the 

state contract based claims case for a protective order to evade having to turn over the email contract 

for the escrow accounts and the written loan application that are the writings of the subject contract 

dispute because the documents are not “relevant.” 

66. While this will no doubt lead to new sanctions against the petitioner for “frivolously” arguing 

the writings to a written contract are relevant and discoverable the danger to justice is that the 

respondent will severely restrict discovery of the records related to the extrinsic fraud in the 

preceding litigation used by the defendants to evade their liability under contract and which is 

inherent in a Missouri state law breach of contract claim as a breach in the UCC duty of good faith 

and fair dealing. 

67. Because the respondent and US Bancorp defense counsel failed to research the applicable law, 

they thought their plan of having the federal racketeering claims over misconduct in the litigation 

including extrinsic fraud and depriving the petitioner of counsel dismissed would prevent the 

petitioner from proving their unlawful behavior.” 

Atch 1 Part B Petition 64-66 at pg. 19-20 

8. The Magistrate Hon. Judge David J. Waxse and Jay E. Heidrick were given notice that the law firm 

Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. was proceeding in a crime against the court and that the order to 

compel had been obtained through extrinsic fraud on the court. Atch, 2. 

9. Despite the exposure of their plan to procure dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims through extrinsic 

fraud, the defendants’ law firm Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. proceeded with the scheme by filing the 

motion at 6:30 am on 8/18/08 that on its face reveals the deception and the expectation that Hon. Judge 

David J. Waxse will participate in the extrinsic fraud on the court, the motion faults the plaintiff for not 

producing the documents already served on both the magistrate and the defendants in the settlement brief 

and information not required in response to interrogatories including addresses unknown to the plaintiff 

and the pro se plaintiff’s legal theories but expressly not seeking the sanction of dismissal Shughart 

2 


Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. had previously arranged for outside of court. See atch. 3 

10. Despite conclusive notice that the matter or controversy was in appeal and that this court was 

thereby deprived of jurisdiction, Magistrate Hon. Judge David J. Waxse participated in the extrinsic or 

extrajudicial fraud by ruling on the motion filed earlier that morning by the defendants. See atch. 4 Order 

of Magistrate Hon. Judge David J. Waxse. 

11. Fearing the extrinsic fraud on the court scheme had been derailed by the plaintiff’s notice that the 

appeal had not been dismissed and other filings of the plaintiff on 8/18/08; Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, 

P.C.’s attorney Jay E. Heidrick filed a redundant motion to require the plaintiff to show cause in which 

Heidrick unconsciously has revealed the fraud on the court used to obtain the order to compel and the 

order of Hon. Judge Carlos Murguia to deny the objection to Hon. Judge David J. Waxse’s order to 

compel production by omitting the demand for the documents Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. had 

already been served and which the defendants US Bank NA and US Bancorp had corruptly destroyed 

committing spoliation even after being noticed to preserve the electronic discovery by the plaintiff. See 

atch. 5. Jay E. Heidrick Motion to Require Show Cause 

12. The Jay E. Heidrick Motion to Require Show Cause also reveals the fraud scheme to dismiss the 

contract claims that depended on Magistrate Hon. Judge David J. Waxse’s participation even after 

receiving notice that the scheme was extrinsic fraud on the court because Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, 

P.C.’s motion now states the true goal of the scheme -the dismissal of the plaintiff’s contract claims as a 

sanction for complying with discovery, even though US Bank and US Bancorp have breached even the 

case management order contract and have not produced any discovery or even the documents they specify 

they will use in their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosure; just as the defendants have had this court repeatedly 

sanctioned for being correct on the law. See exb. 5. Jay E. Heidrick Motion to Require Show Cause 

13. Facts outside of the affidavit of prejudice are known to Magistrate Hon. Judge David J. Waxse and 

Hon. Judge Carlos Murguia including why the plaintiff’s concurrent state antitrust claims were dismissed 

without findings of law or fact by the state court Hon. Judge Manners and that like the plaintiff’s federal 

antitrust and racketeering claims were dismissed for not having pled elements clearly on the face of the 

complaint where the table of contents specified, the plaintiff’s federal racketeering claims were dismissed 

by the W. D. of Missouri Chief Judge Hon. Judge Feranado J. Gaitan in a temporal relationship exceeding 

3 


that rejected in Glass v. Pfeffer, 849 F.2d 1261 at 1268 (C.A.10 (Kan.), 1988) and giving rise to the 

appearance of a lack of independence or extra judicial bias and prejudice by this court. See atch. 6. Notice 

of Appeal in Lipari v. Novation LLC and atch. 7,8 and 9 Rule 59(e) Motion and Answer Suggestions. 


The plaintiff has filed an affidavit under 28 USC § 144 over the court’s proceeding to exert 

jurisdiction in a biased and prejudiced manner against the plaintiff despite being given conclusive notice 

that the plaintiff’s appeal has not been dismissed as sought by the defendants (the plaintiff supplied the 

court a copy of the August 11, 2008 Order of the Tenth Circuit) and this court was under the controlling 

law of this circuit deprived of jurisdiction on July 11, 2008. See Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate’s Order 

of 08/18/08. 

The affidavit was irrefutably timely being before the term in which the case is to be heard and on 

the same day that the plaintiff acquired conclusive evidence requiring recusal of the District Court judge 

court. 

The District Court Judge Hon. Judge Carlos Murguia,( not Magistrate Hon. Judge David J. 

Waxse) is required to determine whether the affidavit is sufficient. The judge against whom an affidavit 

under § 144 is filed must pass upon the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged. Green v. Murphy, 259 F.2d 

591, 593 (3 Cir. 1958). Because Hon. Judge Carlos Murguia is required to examine the circumstances and 

information beyond the affidavit and that information which is known to Hon. Judge Carlos Murguia alone, 

the affidavit has not yet been ruled on: 

“1 The Ninth Circuit in United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980), outlined the 

procedures for recusal of a federal judge. The court explained that a motion brought under Sec. 

144 will raise a question concerning recusal under Sec. 455(b)(1) as well; the test for personal 

bias or prejudice is the same in both. Sec. 455 modifies Sec. 144 in requiring the judge to go 

beyond the Sec. 144 affidavit and consider the merits of the motion pursuant to Sec. 455(a) 

and (b)(1). [Emphasis added]” 

Gerald v. Duckworth, 46 F.3d 1133 at fn 1 (C.A.7 (Ind.), 1994). 

Section 144 requires that where an affidavit of personal bias or prejudice is filed, the judge must 

cease to act in the case and proceed to determine the legal sufficiency of the affidavit. Bell v. Chandler, 569 

F.2d 556 at 559 (C.A.10, 1978). 

4 


The plaintiff’s complaint, unchanged since its initial filing in Independence, Missouri gives notice 

to Hon. Judge Carlos Murguia of the existence 28 U.S.C. Section 455 bias. 

“31. No further court action occurred in the Medical Supply action until the petitioner’s 

counsel had been disbarred, then Kansas District Court Judge Carlos Murguia began in earnest 

making rulings with the visible purpose of dismissing the action for the lack of counsel and 

completing the removal of representation participated in by the Kansas District court and to further 

its adversarial interest in the petitioner’s proceeding. 

32. The Kansas District Court Judge Carlos Murguia dismissed the federal claims in their 

entirety for failure to state a claim despite the fact that the compliant was identical in elements of 

pleading for its claims to the complaint filed in Craftsman Limousine, Inc. vs. Ford Motor Company 

and American Custom Coachworks, et al, 8th Cir. 03- 1441 and 03-1554 and Judge Murguia 

expressly declined to exert jurisdiction over the state law based claims. 

33. The Kansas District court retained jurisdiction over the federal action to sanction 

Medical Supply’s former counsel and SAMUEL K. LIPARI for among other reasons, witnessing his 

counsel’s disbarment but then because of a timely motion for reconsideration ruled Medical Supply 

Chain, Inc. would be sanctioned.” 

Plaintiff’s Petition at pg. 8 31-33. 

The significance of Hon. Judge Carlos Murguia not making rulings in the prior litigation was to 

facilitate the defendants’ scheme to deprive the plaintiff of counsel by preventing the discovery related to 

the racketeering claims over the defense counsel Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C.’s conduct to cause the 

plaintiff’s counsel’s disbarment as descried in detail in the later dismissed for not having required pleading 

elements clearly on the face of the 05-cv-02299-CM-GLR complaint. 

Hon. Judge Carlos Murguia has been discovered by the plaintiff on August 18, 2008 to be giving 

the appearance of using the same tactic of not ruling on the plaintiff’s objections to the defendants’ 

frivolous discovery protective orders as part of an extrajudicial scheme to cause the plaintiff’s contract 

claims to be dismissed through the extrinsic fraud of failing to produce documents already produced to the 

defendants and the magistrate. 

The extra-judicial nature of Hon. Judge Carlos Murguia’s appearance of bias and prejudice against 

the plaintiff and of presiding over this action without independence is the temporally related dismissal of 

racketeering claims by W. D. of Missouri Chief Judge Hon. Judge Feranado J. Gaitan, the judge that 

refused to remand the plaintiff’s state law claims despite their concurrent jurisdiction before the US Court 

of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit and instead transferred them to the District of Kansas. Hon. Judge Feranado 

J. Gaitan dismissal as detailed in atch 9 also dismisses the plaintiff’s racketeering claims for not containing 

elements clearly present on the face of the complaint. 

5 


Prior Extrajudicial Source Bias 

The court has participated in an extrajudicial source of prejudice and bias through extrinsic fraud 

by the defendants to procure an order to compel production of documents already produced and addresses 

or legal theories in response to interrogatories. The defendants procured these orders through extrinsic 

fraud or fraud on the court. "…that species of fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a 

fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner 

its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Great Coastal Exp., Inc. v. 

International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, 675 F.2d 1349 at 

1356 (C.A.4 (Va.), 1982) “Fraud is regarded as extrinsic or collateral where it prevents a party from 

having a trial or from presenting his cause of action or his defense, or induces him to withdraw a defense, 

or operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself, but to the manner in which it was procured.” 

Muncrief v. Mobil Oil Company, 421 F.2d 801 at fn 2 (10th Cir., 1970). Kansas courts have defined 

extrinsic fraud as "some act or conduct of the prevailing party which has prevented a fair submission of the 

controversy." Hood v. Hood, 335 F.2d 585 at 591 (10th Cir., 1964). 

The procurement of the order to compel was “fraud extrinsic to the matters tried and determined 

by the other court and which caused the court to render a wrong judgment, such as the successful party 

through fraud or deception preventing the unsuccessful from presenting his case " described in Johnson v. 

First National Bank in Wichita, Kansas, 223 F.2d 31 at 34 (10th Cir., 1955). 

In Knapp v. Kinsey, 232 F.2d 458, 465 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 892, 77 S.Ct. 131, 1 

L.Ed.2d 86 (1956), reversing a lower court because of bias appearing during the trial, the court recognized 

the 'close analogy' between bias developed during trial, which requires reversal, and bias evident prior to 

trial, which requires disqualification under Section 144. The critical formulation of bias sufficient to 

reverse was forcefully expressed by the court: 

“Whether unconsciously or otherwise, (the trial judge) failed from the start of the trial to view 

this case with the impartiality between litigants that the defendants were entitled to receive. His 

active participation in the case and in the questioning of witnesses exceeded what was reasonably 

necessary to obtain a clear understanding of what their testimony was and fully justifies appellants' 

complaint that at times 'he, figuratively speaking, stepped down from the bench to assume the role 

of advocate for the plaintiff.' Although appellees' counsel did not ask or need such assistance, and 

apparently at times realized the possible prejudice to their cause, the prejudicial effect to appellants' 

rights requires a reversal of the judgment. 

Id. at 467. 

6 


Where such advocatory bias 'exist(s) before the trial it furnishes the basis for disqualification of 

the judge to conduct the trial. Section 144, Title 28, U.S. Code.' Id. at 465. Especially from a due process 

perspective, it seems clear that the 'judicial proceeding' rule can extend no further than is necessary to 

preserve the functional ability of the courts to try cases. Mitchell v. Sirica, 502 F.2d 375 (C.A.D.C., 1974) 

A favorable or unfavorable predisposition can also deserve to be characterized as "bias" or 

"prejudice" because, even though it springs from the facts adduced or the events occurring at trial, it is so 

extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment. (That explains what some courts have called 

the "pervasive bias" exception to the "extrajudicial source" doctrine. See, e. g., Davis v. Board of School 

Comm'rs of Mobile County, 517 F. 2d 1044, 1051 (CA5 1975), cert. denied, 425 U. S. 944 (1976).). 

CONCLUSION 

Whereas the trial judge has not reviewed the plaintiff’s affidavit of prejudice or has not made an 

order regarding that review, under 28 USC § 144 there are no further proceedings in this court and because 

this court lost jurisdiction due to the notice of appeal filed on July 11, 2008, the magistrate’s order is void 

for want of jurisdiction. 



____________________ 




816-365-1306 


Pro se 









via email 


7 





____________________ 


Attachments: 

Atch 1 email to Shughart Thomson Kilroy Disclosing Petition 

Atch 1 Part A Judicial Ethics Complaint 

Atch 1 Part B Petition 

Atch 1 Part C Exhibits 

Atch 1 Part D Exhibits 2 

Atch 2 Letter of July-22-08 

Atch 2 Exb 1 02-3443 Order Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v. US Bancorp, NA. 

Atch 2 Exb. 2 Authority for investgation research 

Atch 3 Response to Show Cause Order 

Atch 4 Order to Show Cause 

Atch 5 Lipari Motion For Order To Show Cause 

Atch 6 Missouri Notice of Appeal 

Atch 7 Lipari v GE Rule 59(e) Motion 

Atch 8 Lipari Rule 59(e) Reply Suggestion 

Atch 9 Reply Suggestion to Seyfarth Shaw 

8 


Date: February, 1 st 2008 

Office of the Circuit Executive 

United States Tenth Circuit 

Byron White United States Courthouse 

1823 Stout Street 

Denver, Colorado 80257 

Re: Judicial Ethics Complaint against US District for Kansas Court Judge Carlos Murguia 

Dear Honorable Chief Judge Deanell Reece Tacha 

I am making a judicial ethics complaint against US District for Kansas Court Judge Carlos 

Murguia and his conduct in the following cases: Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v. US Bancorp, NA et al KS. 

Dist. Case No. 02-2539; Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v. General Electric Company, et al., 

case number 03-2324-CM, Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v Novation, et al; KS Dist. Court Case No.: 05-2299 

(Formerly W.D. MO. Case No. 05-0210); 

I am forced to make this complaint against my litigation interests and risk the certain retribution 

despite the recent US History of judges not being disciplined regardless of the seriousness of their 

offenses. 1 The reason I am forced to make this complaint is the urgency that the misconduct is continuing 

and threatens my property and has prevented me from incorporating and for all practical purposes, from 

ever entering the market for hospital supplies. I was stopped from obtaining a case management hearing in 

2002 in the matter that I am still litigating today, just before I was to meet with the Hon. Magistrate Waxse. 

The discoverable and public documents clearly and conclusively prove my claims. A known fact that seems 

to necessitate repeated dismissals before discovery commences. I finally got to the January, 2008 case 

management hearing and Hon. Magistrate Waxse set a schedule including a timetable for dispositive 

motions that the parties mutually agreed to. 

While working on the next exhaustive task of documenting my damages and the controlling case 

law governing discovery, Judge Carlos Murguia issued a minute order having the effect of over ruling the 

case management order and did so by a minute entry with no document, having the effect of giving me no 

notice of the accelerated deadline. 

As the party experiencing the repeated prejudice and misconduct of US District for Kansas Court 

Judge Carlos Murguia I am fully aware of what would have happened to my chances of ever entering the 

market to compete with Novation LLC and lower hospital supply costs and all I have ever worked for if I 

had missed the stealth deadline. 

Each time I have had my claims dismissed based on facially false and readily discernable 

misrepresentations about the contents of my pleadings. This has been coupled with decisions on law 

directly contradicting controlling authority or adopting the defendants’ false legal argument grounded in the 

misrepresentation of whether words stating elements are in my complaints. Each time I have sought 

rehearings, pointing out the clear error of contradicting US Supreme Court authority on the precise issue or 

demonstrating that a federal statute or public law expressly states language for a private right of action, 

Judge Carlos Murguia has denied them. Judge Carlos Murguia has also denied me opportunities to correct 

any deficiencies in my claims. 

Any prejudice against me or my claims by Judge Carlos Murguia cannot be based on an objective 

view of the law or the economic conditions resulting from restraint of trade in the market for hospital 

1 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040813.html 

Atch 1 Part A Judicial Ethics Complaint 


supplies. Similarly, the defendant banking conglomerate US Bancorp has lost evidentiary hearings, been 

fined and settled with the New York Attorney General and the Securities and Exchange Commission for 

their conduct in extorting new healthcare technology companies to the hospital supply marketplace 

controlled by Novation LLC and for conduct in the capitalization of my competitor Neoforma, Inc. If Judge 

Carlos Murguia is acting on ex parte information from the law firms representing the defendants, their 

pleadings reveal a complete absence of knowledge of the crisis preventing Americans from receiving 

healthcare through artificial inflation and restraint of trade. The nation and even the defendants are being 

harmed by Judge Carlos Murguia’s lack of impartiality. 

I have sought judicial review of Judge Carlos Murguia’s misconduct through appeal in Medical 

Supply Chain, Inc. v. US Bancorp, NA et al 10th Cir. Case No.: 02-3443; Medical 

Supply Chain, Inc. v. General Electric Company, et al. No. 04-3075 and 04-3102 (10th Cir.) and Medical 

Supply Chain, Inc. v. US Bancorp, NA et al 10th Cir. Case No.: 03-3342; 06- 3331. This has been frustrated 

by back channel communications fostered in Judge Carlos Murguia’s office that prejudice me and everyone 

associated with helping me in the eyes of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and other courts. The most 

recent appeal decisively showed Judge Carlos Murguia’s error on every point sustaining his ruling and the 

statement of facts documented the blatantly false claims the required pleading elements were not stated 

clearly in my complaint. See Applt Br at pages 19-31, Applee Br.: 2 , 3 

The notice of appeal was not timely. My former counsel Bret D. Landrith never missed deadlines, 

only the defense counsel. I depended on his research and willingness to take my action on contingency as 

Congressional policy provided for. It became essential to the opposing law firms to have him prevented 

from helping me. My former counsel was disbarred over the ex parte communications to the Kansas state 

disciplinary authority fostered by Judge Carlos Murguia and reciprocally disbarred after by Judge Carlos 

Murguia vehement dismissal with sanctions of Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v Novation, et al; KS Dist. 

Court Case No.: 05-2299 (Formerly W.D. MO. Case No. 05-0210) and threats to sanction me or my 

counsel for seeking reconsideration. The past unwillingness of the Tenth Circuit to exercise judicial review 

and the financial sanctions being issued for correctly stating the law made it very dangerous for Dennis 

Hawver and impossible to find replacement counsel. 

Shortly after the appeal was rejected, the national news covered the hospital supply restraint of 

trade problem. In "Blowing the Whistle, Many Times" The New York Times Cynthia Fitzgerald By Mary 

Williams Walsh, November 18, 2007 described hundreds of millions of dollars lost from Medicare by the 

misconduct. 4 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/business/18whistle.html. I have maintained the 

documentary evidence that is the basis for my claims in the above litigation online at 

http://www.medicalsupplychain.com/news.htm and includes four years of US Senate Judiciary Committee 

testimony on the restraint of trade I have raised in my complaint and the conduct of Novation LLC in 

keeping healthcare technology companies from being capitalized. 

The national interest and lives lost from increasing and unaffordable healthcare resulting in the 

lack of competition in hospital supplies has made Judge Carlos Murguia’s dereliction of his duty 

horrifically egregious. Not only I and the legal counsel and other business associates been injured but so 

have the defendants, some of which are publicly traded corporations. Despite Judge Carlos Murguia’s 

willingness to rule for the defendants’ local counsel regardless of their failure to research issues or even to 

be honest about the documents before the court in their written pleadings, the defendant corporations still 

are injured by the non law based outcomes and are unable to change their chargeable conduct and the avoid 

the consequences. Most of all, the integrity of the Kansas District Court and the people of the United States 

who provide for civil enforcement through the courts of Congresses laws against restraint of trade. 

I realize this begins a long road, first to the circuit Judicial Council’s likely unwillingness to 

investigate this complaint, then to the Judicial Conference. Afterwards, without relief I will be forced to 

then seek redress in the legislature and finally through popular sovereignty in changing the policy that 

2 http://www.medicalsupplychain.com/pdf/Novation%20Appeal%20Brief.pdf 

3 http://www.medicalsupplychain.com/pdf/Novation%20&%20US%20Bank%20Reply%20Brief.pdf 

4 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/business/18whistle.html. 


permitted the repeated outcomes here that are contrary to fact and law. I know the Kansas District court and 

practitioners will wish me success. All of whom are hurt by the overt ness of Judge Carlos Murguia’s 

repeated misconduct and whom value our court system and its role in vindicating our national policies. 

I stand ready to provide all documentation and testimony any and every investigation of these 

events may require. 

Sincerely, 


Samuel Lipari 




Phone: 816.365.1306 




JUDICIAL COUNCIL THE TENTH CIRCUIT 


) 

In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct, ) 

) Case No. 2008-10-372-08 

) 

PETITION FOR REVIEW 

Comes now the petitioner Samuel K. Lipari and respectfully requests that 

this judicial council review the March 14, 2008 order by the Hon. Robert H. 

Henry, Chief Circuit Judge dismissing the complaint against the respondent and 

take action to stop the continuing violations of Judicial Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A1, 

3A2, 3A3, 3A4, 3A6, 3B2, and 3B3 by the respondent. 

Introduction 

This petition seeks to review the dismissal of the judicial misconduct 

complaint made against the respondent for the ministerial act of withholding 

notice of an order that if neglected would have resulted in the petitioner’s loss of 

his remaining claims. The respondent has been presiding over the petitioner’s 

contract and pendant federal claims since 2002. The respondent’s name is omitted 

to permit publication of this petition. 

The petitioner realized his contract was breached to further the defendants’ 

interest in the Novation LLC hospital supply cartel and first entered court through 

his Missouri corporation Medical Supply Chain, Inc. appearing before the 

respondent to seek only prospective injunctive relief preventing the defendants 

1 

Atch 1 Part B Petition 


from obstructing his entry into the hospital supply market. By breaching a 

contract to provide escrow accounts to the manufacturer’s representatives the 

petitioner had recruited for the purpose of funding the development of hospital 

customers, the defendants protected their underwriting of Neoforma, Inc the 

petitioner’s direct competitor which was openly a member of a hospital supply 

cartel published in securities filings as creating exclusionary long term 

anticompetitive contracts with more than 2500 hospitals nationwide and organized 

by General Electric under the leadership of Jeffry Immelt and Novation LLC, also 

published in securities filings. 

The respondent became convinced from sources other than the petitioner or 

any known filings that the defendants could not be liable for antitrust and the 

respondent began a pattern and practice of dismissing all the petitioner’s actions 

before discovery could commence. In the marketplace, the defendants were 

emboldened to commit subsequent antitrust felonies injuring consumers in the 

market and the petitioner. 

The petitioner reentered court seeking damages for the subsequent conduct 

violating antitrust law and for the misconduct of the defendants in committing 

extortion under color of official right to prevent the petitioner from being able to 

present his case to a jury through extrinsic fraud. The respondent again delayed 

and prevented discovery and delayed ruling on the petitioner’s partial summary 

judgment which contained the controlling law applied to evidentiary exhibits of 

the extortion until after the petitioner was successfully deprived of counsel, then 

2 


the respondent ordered dismissal of all federal claims, dismissing the partial 

summary judgment as moot and dismissing without prejudice the petitioner’s state 

law claims. The order written by the respondent also sanctioned the petitioner in 

the complete absence of jurisdiction and sanctioned the petitioner’s former counsel 

despite the respondent’s prior orders excluding the petitioner and from the action. 

I. Statement of Facts 

1. The petitioner made a complaint of judicial misconduct against the 

respondent, a district court judge on February 1, 2008. See Exb. 1. 

A. Conclusive Evidence of Respondent’s Ministerial Misconduct 

2. The complaint identified the ministerial conduct of failing to give the 

petitioner notice that the response due date for the defendants’ second Rule 

12(b)(6) motion for dismissal had been changed in an electronic minute order 

without a paper copy being mailed to the pro se petitioner: 

“While working on the next exhaustive task of documenting my 

damages and the controlling case law governing discovery, Judge Carlos 

Murguia issued a minute order having the effect of over ruling the case 

management order and did so by a minute entry with no document, having 

the effect of giving me no notice of the accelerated deadline.” 

Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, pg. 1 of Exb. 1. 

3 


3. The complaint clearly identifies the gravamen of the misconduct and the 

consequences that would have befallen the petitioner had he not discovered the 

electronic order had shortened the deadline from 4/24/2008 1 to 2/1/2008: 

“As the party experiencing the repeated prejudice and misconduct of US 

District for Kansas Court Judge Carlos Murguia I am fully aware of what 

would have happened to my chances of ever entering the market to compete 

with Novation LLC and lower hospital supply costs and all I have ever 

worked for if I had missed the stealth deadline.” 

Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, pg. 1 of Exb. 1 

4. After receiving an acknowledgement of the complaint, the petitioner was 

not contacted by the Judicial Council until receiving a cover letter (Exb. 2) and the 

order signed by the Hon. Robert H. Henry, Chief Circuit Judge dismissing the 

complaint. See Exb. 3. 

5. The record of the case confirms the respondent’s alteration of the parties’ 

agreed upon schedule and the order of the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate’s 

scheduling order electronically served on the defendants’ counsel and mailed to 

the plaintiff states: “Motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,4/1/08” 

See Magistrate’s Order pg. 2 of Exb. 4. 

6. The respondent made an entry without a paper order: 

“1/24/2008 51 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 46 Motion for 

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 43 MOTION to Dismiss 

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Response deadline 2/1/2008. Signed by District Judge 

…[Respondent]… on 1/24/08.(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is 

no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (js) (Entered: 01/24/2008)” 

1 KS. Dist. Court Local Rule 6.1(d)(2) provides 23 days to respond to dispositive 

motions. 

4 


Appearance Docket of the subject litigation. 

7. The petitioner avoided the effect of being deprived of notice and the 

respondent and the judicial council are able to readily verify the petitioner’s 

justifiable fear on the first page of the response to the dismissal: 

“The plaintiff is also aware of this court’s disposition toward him and his 

claims embodied by the court’s January 24th, 2008 decision to over rule the 

Magistrate Judge’s case management schedule and require this answer by 

February 2, 2008. 

An impartial observer could find that the issuance of a minute order 

changing the schedule without accompanying documentation could prejudice 

a pro se defendant excluded from the electronic case management system. 

The plaintiff has no doubt as to what would have been in store for his 

claims or his future ability to enter the hospital supply market and compete 

against US Bancorp’s co-conspirator Novation LLC had he not made the 

deadline.” 

Petitioner’s Response to Second Dismissal, Exb. 5 

B. Respondent’s Retaliatory Obstruction of Rule 60(b) Proceedings 

8. On March 28, 2008 following the March 18 letter transmitting the 

Judicial Council order dismissing the judicial ethics complaint, the respondent 

struck the petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion and ordered the petitioner to show 

cause in an electronic filing of a Word Perfect Document the respondent 

entitled “Lipari sanctions.” See Exb. 6 . 

5 


(1) Causing The Kansas Clerk To Again Withhold Mailing An Order 

9. The respondent’s March 28 order was available as a pdf file and 

delivered via the court’s electronic case filing to the defendants and the Clerk of 

the Kansas District Court but was not mailed to the pro se petitioner (as other 

orders in this case and the petitioner’s Kansas District Court litigation with the 

exception of the 1/24/2008 minute order above) who is not eligible for 

electronic filing. 

10. Like the 1/24/2008 minute order, the March 28 order directed and 

required a response by the petitioner within a limited number of days or the 

petitioner would lose a significant property interest. 

11. The petitioner made a timely answer after accidentally discovering the 

order had been made. See Exb. 7 

(2) Complete Absence of Jurisdiction To Strike Rule 60(b) Motion 

12. Like the 1/24/2008, the March 28 order was contrary to the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. The 1/24/2008 order directed the petitioner to answer 

a second Rule 12 dismissal motion not permitted under F.R.Civ. P. Rule 12. 

The March 28 order struck a motion by the petitioner that was not a pleading 

that could be struck under Rule 12(f) as defined by Rule 7 and the controlling 

case law of this circuit. See Exb 7. 

13. The respondent’s prior dismissal order of federal claims in this action 

sanctions the petitioner and the petitioner’s former attorney, neither of whom 

6 


were parties to the action at the time the order was made and over whom the 

court had a complete absence of jurisdiction. See Exb 8. 

14. The respondent’s order is harshly critical of the petitioner and his former 

counsel expressing a complete disbelief of the petitioner’s claims and related 

sworn affidavit as the basis for the dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) even though 

there had been no discovery in any of the petitioner’s cases and no basis to 

question the petitioner’s factual averments except ex parte communications 

with defense counsel. See Exb 8. 

15. The order sanctions the petitioner for bringing subsequent claims that 

were not precluded under the transactional approach to res judicata that is the 

controlling law of this circuit and are materially identical to controlling US 

Supreme Court antitrust cases determining similar claims were not precluded. 

16. When the respondent realized his order dismissing the petitioner’s now 

dissolved Missouri corporation and sanctioning the petitioner made the 

petitioner a party in the action, the respondent attempted to refute the change he 

had created in a second order but ended up confirming the petitioner was 

ultimately liable. See Exb. 9. 

17. The reason the petitioner was being treated with open bias and prejudice 

by the respondent in his orders and the verifiable reason the federal claims were 

dismissed (even though the required elements were clearly and concisely pled 

with supporting factual averments at exactly where the complaint’s table of 

contents indicated ) is because the petitioner had subsequent conduct claims 

7 


ased on the defendants’ misconduct in preceding litigation that included 

conduct the respondent witnessed and knew occurred. See Exb. 10. 

18. The petitioner had also filed a partial summary judgment briefing the 

respondent on the current state of the applicable federal law governing the 

petitioner’s claims on this misconduct and providing supporting evidentiary 

documents. See “Memorandum In Support Of First Plaintiff’s Motion For 

Partial Summary Judgment Under F. R. CIV. P. Local Rule 56.1”,Exb 11. And 

Exb 11 supporting attachments 1 thru 13. 

19. The conduct complained of in the complaint and documented in the 

motion for partial summary judgment concerned extrinsic fraud through 

Extortion Under Color of Official Right in depriving the petitioner of 

representation so that the petitioner would be forced to forfeit his claims. See 

Exb 10. 

20. The extrinsic fraud of Extortion Under Color of Official Right used to 

procure the decision in this case was also contained in the procedural history 

portion of the petitioner’s state law contract claims against US Bank and US 

Bancorp (see Exb. 29) filed by the petitioner in the 16 th Circuit Court of the 

State of Missouri at Independence, Missouri and is again before the respondent 

without alteration after fraudulently being removed and transferred to the 

respondent where he exercised jurisdiction over them while the Tenth Circuit 

appeal of their dismissal was proceeding and the respondent was in the 

complete absence of jurisdiction. 

8 


21. The petitioner had opposed transfer of the antitrust case to the 

respondent and made an affidavit documenting the misconduct he witnessed in 

the Kansas District court, including the attempted extortion to deprive him of 

representation, the offer of $300,000.00 cash to replace the capital US Bank and 

US Bancorp deprived him of if he accepted substitute counsel provided by the 

Kansas Disciplinary Administrator’s agent Gene E. Schroer, the warrantless 

wiretapping related to the USA PATRIOT Act and the false testimony under 

oath and the accompanying ex parte communications of the respondent’s 

magistrate to the Kansas state tribunal witnessed by the petitioner. See Exb 12. 

22. This affidavit which never was contested and which no hearing ever 

resulted from was referred to with disbelief by the respondent in his order 

granting a rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the petitioner’s federal claims and ordering 

sanctions of the petitioner. 

23. As directed by the Tenth Circuit, the petitioner and his former counsel 

made a criminal complaint based on this conduct to the Kansas City, Missouri 

regional office of the FBI. See Exb 13. 

C. Respondent’s Past Obstruction of Rule 59 Proceedings 

24. The respondent has previously ignored clear error over controlling US 

Supreme Court decisions and the express grant of private rights of action by the 

US Congress when brought to his attention by the petitioner in timely motions for 

reconsideration. See Exb 14 a motion struck because the petitioner had been by the 

9 


espondent’s order deprived of the representation of Bret D. Landrith and by the 

threats of sanctions constructively deprived of the representation of Dennis 

Hawver and left unable to find replacement counsel. 

25. The respondent had previously failed to address the petitioner’s timely 

motion for reconsideration in Medical Supply I. 

26. The failure of the respondent to take into consideration the petitioner’s 

reconsiderations resulted in judgments that directly conflicted with controlling US 

Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedents and also repudiated the express 

language of the Congress in the USA PATRIOT Act creating private rights of 

action. 

D. Respondent’s Communications To Defeat Review 

27. Patrick Fisher, the former Clerk of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals 

developed a completely prejudiced view of the merits of the petitioner’s litigation 

despite no previous communications by the petitioner or his counsel to Mr. Fisher 

and no known involvement of Mr. Fisher in the hospital supply industry. 

28. The petitioner’s former attorney wrote Mr. Fisher a letter attempting to 

rectify some of the misunderstandings. See Exb. 16. 

29. The Tenth Circuit decided not to review the legal basis for the respondent’s 

Medical Supply I decision and issued an order upholding the respondent even 

adopting the respondent’s clear error declaration that there was no private right of 

action under the USA PATRIOT Act and this decision is used in the Missouri 

10 


State Court and the Western District of Missouri to repeatedly attempt to prejudice 

the court’s into believing any claim by the petitioner is frivolous. See Exb17. 

30. The petitioner in shock answered the Show Cause and circulated it to 

members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee he had already been in contact 

with concerning the difficulty of addressing the anticompetitive practices of 

the Novation LLC cartel (the subject of two preceding US Senate Judiciary 

Antitrust subcommittee hearings ) See Exb 18. 

31. The Tenth Circuit upheld the dismissal violating the Rule 12(b)(6) standard 

and overtly expressed disbelief of the petitioner’s claims as a basis for the 

dismissal which the Tenth Circuit has since been over ruled on but materially, the 

Tenth Circuit adopted the respondent’s view that the claims were not researched 

when in fact the complaint contained sixteen sources listed in end notes citing to 

investigative journalism, government and academic support for the petitioner’s 

claims. See Exb 19. 

32. The Tenth Circuit in the person of the Chief Clerk of the Tenth Circuit 

Court of Appeals ordered the harshest possible sanctions for a frivolous appeal 

despite even acknowledging the district court and the appellate panel’s error that 

there were indeed private rights of action under the USA PATRIOT Act but 

refusing to change its approval of the trial court’s adoption of the defendants straw 

man fraud that the complaint did not identify other legally separate hospital supply 

cartel co-conspirators and their agreement which was identified in SEC required 

filings. See Exb 20. 

11 


33. The petitioner’s brief in Medical Supply I had apprised the appellate court 

of the important national interest at stake in the appeal and the petitioner’s 

involvement of the US Senate in the issues before the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals: 

After five years developing the technology, it attempted to capitalize its entry 

into the hospital supply market at the moment it saw hospitals were seeking 

alternatives to healthcare group purchasing organizations (“GPO’s”) as a 

result of a New York Times series exposing the harmful effects of GPO’s 

and a series of US Senate Judiciary Antitrust sub-committee hearings were 

critically reviewing the anti-kickback1 safe harbor under Medicare for 

GPO’s. Aplt. Apdx. v1 C 26,C En.vii and viii. 

The testimony related to the petitioner was even excerpted: 

“On July 16, 2003, the national policy debate on the appropriateness 

of the 

Medicare anti-kickback safe harbor for group purchasing convened 

again before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

without Medical Supply’s presence as a competitor in the hospital supply 

marketplace: 

“How important is the E-Commerce monopoly to those who control 

it Over the past year one start-up company has been blocked twice from 

market entry. The first time, a bank tied to an investment house that has 

seventy percent of its holdings in health care suppliers refused to provide the 

company with simple escrow services through a blatant misapplication of the 

USA Patriot Act. Most recently an international conglomerate that is a 

founder of GHX was willing to take a $15 million dollar loss on a real estate 

deal just to keep this company out of the market.” Testimony Lynn James 

Everard, Hospital Group Purchasing: Has the Market Become More Open to 

Competition, United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition and Business and Consumer Rights 

July 16, 2003” 

See Exb. 21. 

34. The testimony described both the Medical Supply I case and the petitioner’s 

related case against the General Electric co-conspirators which the respondent also 

12 


dismissed, contradicting controlling law of the US Supreme Court and the Tenth 

Circuit Court of Appeals on whether all antitrust Sherman I antitrust conspirators 

need to be named as defendants (the petitioner had identified each of the coconspirators 

and described in detail their agreement and conduct but chose to 

name only those directly injuring him in furtherance of the hospital supply cartel. 

35. The Tenth Circuit panel’s opinion reflected the respondent’s 

communication of disdain and admonishment contained in the respondent’s order 

of dismissal. 

36. The day after the Tenth Circuit panel’s decision in the petitioner’s GE case, 

the US Supreme Court docketed the petitioner’s former attorney’s petition for 

certiorari of the sanctions in Medical Supply I. 

37. The petitioner again brought to the attention of the Tenth Circuit the 

respondent’s dismissal of federal claims in Medical Supply II violation of 

controlling US Supreme Court precedent and the express language of the US 

Congress in granting private rights of action under the USA PATRIOT Act in 

claims based on the subsequent and continuing conduct of the defendants. 

38. The national interest in the issues affected by the litigation had grown. US 

Senator Sam Brownback was met with protestors demonstrating against 

unaffordable healthcare costs in Topeka and ultimately withdrew from the US 

Presidential race despite the absence of another social conservative with 

experience in the House and Senate. Both the US Senator who had chaired the US 

Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Sub Committee hearing described above 

13 


and the US Senator from Missouri had lost their seats due to public concern over 

the lack of affordable healthcare: 

“Hon. Senator Mike DeWine, the chair of the US Senate Judiciary 

Committee's Antitrust Subcommittee hearing that during the fourth year of 

antitrust hearings on the defendant Novation’s anticompetitive conduct in the 

hospital supply market concluded Novation’s abuses could be better 

corrected with private antitrust litigation than with new legislation 95 on 

pg.52. Senator Mike DeWine lost his re-election on November 4, 2006. The 

senator from Missouri, Hon. Jim Talent also lost his seat in part because of 

the healthcare issue. 

See KC Star Buzz Blog Sept 29, 2006 CAMPAIGN AD BUZZ | McCaskill 

criticizes Talent on Medicaid.” 

See Exb. 22. 

39. The harsh rebuke’s of the petitioner, sanctions overtly contrary to 

controlling law and the threats of more sanctions if any post trial motions are made 

had the foreseeable effect of making it difficult for the petitioner to obtain counsel 

for an appeal. 

40. The appeal was ultimately dismissed based on timeliness. 

E. Respondent’s Effect on Other Litigation 

41. The respondent’s dismissal of Medical Supply II which included the 

defendants Neoforma, Inc. and Novation LLC aggrevated the government’s False 

Claims Act investigation of Novation LLC. 

42. On November 17, 2007 the New York Times ran a feature interview on the 

newly unsealed case by a senior Novation LLC manager who witnessed the 

conduct described by the petitioner in the Medical Supply complaint: See Exb 23. 

14 


(1) Respondent’s Effect On Litigation in the Eighth Circuit 

43. The respondent’s earlier decisions deceived or confused Western District of 

Missouri Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. and he declined to remand the 

petitioner’s state law claims against US Bank and US Bancorp that had earlier 

been dismissed without prejudice by the respondent and transferred them back to 

the respondent despite the exclusive federal jurisdiction being exercised over those 

same claims by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Exb. 25. 

44. The US Attorney for the Western District of Missouri was removed from 

office under a now repealed provision of the USA PATRIOT II to interfere in the 

Medicare Fraud investigation of Robert H. Bezanson and CoxHealth in 

Springfield, Missouri and to ensure the above mentioned FBI criminal complaint 

was not investigated, necessitating the petitioner’s press releasing of a USDOJ 

memo on the “Ninth US Attorney” and indirectly causing the defendants’ work to 

deprive the petitioner of a republican form of government being defeated through 

legislative redress. See Exb. 24. 

45. Western District of Missouri Judge Ortrie D. Smith was deceived or 

confused by the respondent’s rulings as used by the defendants and ordered the 

transfer of Medical Supply II to the Kansas District court despite the strong 

interests of the State of Missouri which was being forced to eliminate Medicaid, 

See Exb. 26. 

46. The complaint had stated clearly the pressing State of Missouri interest: 

15 


President George Bush who has observed that there is an absence of 

competition in healthcare (47 on pg.43) came to St. Luke’s Health System 

in Lee’s Summit, Missouri with Secretary of Health and Human Services 

Michael Leavitt, two days after the State of the Union speech to personally 

initiate the administration’s plan to make healthcare affordable. Office of the 

President, January 25, 2007 press release. 

Governor Matt Blunt described in the complaint 85 at pg. 50 as having to 

cut Missouri citizens from Medicaid because of hospital supply cost 

increases, made healthcare the central priority of his State of the State speech 

but on January 25th chose to speak about healthcare at other Missouri 

communities rather than appear with President George Bush in Lee’s 

Summit. Office of the President, January 25, 2007 press release Comments 

of Secretary Leavitt. 

On the same day, the New York Times reported that the Attorney General 

for the State of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal reached a settlement with 

H.R.D.I. that Medical Supply identified as a co-conspirator but did not name 

as a defendant over the commercial bribes given to hospital administrators 

141-143 pg. 61. H.R.D.I. agreed to end operations as a for profit 

company. “Group Settles Health Sales Conflict Case”, NY Times Jan. 25, 

2007 

See Exb. 22 

47. Western District of Missouri Judge Ortrie D. Smith could not have 

known that the respondent would be biased or that the earlier decision in 

Medical Supply I had been obtained through extrinsic influence. 

48. The Western District of Missouri Chief Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. 

could not have known that the prior rulings were unrelated to the merits of the 

petitioner’s claims against the GE co-conspirators who had breached the 

contract for the sale of the real estate lease to withhold a critical capital input 

for the purpose of continuing to exclude the hospital supply market and was 

surprised at the necessity for mandamus to restore the petitioner’s ability to 

16 


enter the market where Missouri doctors had testified patients would die from 

the Medicaid cuts. See Exb 27. 

(2) Respondent’s Effect On Litigation in the State of Missouri 

49. The case was returned to the Missouri State Court which still appeared 

influenced by the respondent’s earlier decisions necessitating a second and third 

mandamus. See Exb. 28. 

50. The GE defendants continued the extrinsic fraud, even repeatedly 

making misrepresentations to the Missouri State Court that ultimately resulted 

in additional federal racketeering claims based on the GE defendants’ 

subsequent conduct and the action is now removed again to the Western District 

of Missouri. 

51. The respondent exerted jurisdiction over the petitioner’s state contract 

claims filed in Independence, Missouri despite the repeated notice that the 

Tenth Circuit had exclusive federal jurisdiction during the pending petitioner’s 

appeal and the detailed procedural history on the face of the complaint. See 

Exb. 29. 

52. The petitioner was forced to file a separate concurrent state law antitrust 

case in Independence, Missouri against the current Kansas district Court 

antitrust defendants that the respondent dismissed without prejudice when the 

petitioner had more than adequately plead each of the elements of his federal 

antitrust and racketeering claims. See Exb. 30. 

17 


53. Since the defendants law firms were not given meaningful guidance on 

antitrust law by the respondent’s clearly erroneous dismissals, the defendants 

continued the unlawful conduct and committed subsequent acts injuring 

Missourians and involving Missouri hospitals and executives in the restraint of 

trade. 

54. The defendants cannot now avail themselves of the advantages of a 

federal forum because the respondent struck the petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion 

despite the complete absence of jurisdiction to do so under Rule 12(f). See 

Exbs. 7 and 8. 

F. Respondent As a Catalyst For New Federal Judicial Ethics Procedures 

55. When the respondent went beyond erroneous decisions and 

communicated admonishment of the petitioner’s research and diligence despite 

the respondent’s repeated demonstrations that the petitioner’s filings had been 

unread and that the adopted defendants’ legal arguments conflicted with 

controlling legal authorities, the petitioner began working to improve the 

federal justice system. 

56. On November 10, 2004 the petitioner wrote a letter to members of the 

US Senate Committee on the Judiciary including Senator Arlen Specter. See 

Exb. 32. 

57. After the failure of judicial review the petitioner wrote a second letter to 

members of the committee including Senator Arlen Specter. See Exb. 33. 

18 


58. Through the petitioner’s lobbying and working for reform with the US 

Senate, the national Judicial Council redefined its role in judicial ethics 

complaints and the discipline of judges. 

59. Despite these changes, the respondent still continues to exercise open 

prejudice and bias defeating the Congressionally legislated public policy of 

having the petitioner with his knowledge of the hospital supply industry address 

anticompetitive practices that violate federal law. 

60. The petitioner has been forced to redouble his judicial reform efforts. 

See Exb. 34. 

61. When the petitioner complained about the misconduct of the 

respondent’s magistrate, the former Chief Judge of the Tenth Circuit 

determined that the ethics complaint was frivolous before the transcript of the 

magistrate’s testimony was available. See Exb. 35. 

62. However the former Chief Judge recognized the likelihood bias or 

prejudice against the petitioner’s cause existed. Id. 

63. The transcript clearly shows the magistrate at first misrepresented the 

record to the Kansas Disciplinary tribunal in regards to staying discovery in the 

petitioner’s litigation despite the absence of jurisdiction to do so. See Exb 13 

Atch 9. Transcript of Magistrate’s testimony and Exb 13 Atch 9A Order of 

Stay. 

64. The defendants’ law firm is aware of the changes made in the judicial 

council’s treatment of judicial misconduct complaints yet they still file 

19 


pleadings that contain extrinsic fraud believing the respondent will grant them. 

See Exb 36. 

65. The US Bank and US Bancorp defendants are currently arguing before 

the respondent in the state contract based claims case for a protective order to 

evade having to turn over the email contract for the escrow accounts and the 

written loan application that are the writings of the subject contract dispute 

because the documents are not “relevant.” 

66. While this will no doubt lead to new sanctions against the petitioner for 

“frivolously” arguing the writings to a written contract are relevant and 

discoverable the danger to justice is that the respondent will severely restrict 

discovery of the records related to the extrinsic fraud in the preceding litigation 

used by the defendants to evade their liability under contract and which is 

inherent in a Missouri state law breach of contract claim as a breach in the UCC 

duty of good faith and fair dealing. 

67. Because the respondent and US Bancorp defense counsel failed to 

research the applicable law, they thought their plan of having the federal 

racketeering claims over misconduct in the litigation including extrinsic fraud 

and depriving the petitioner of counsel dismissed would prevent the petitioner 

from proving their unlawful behavior. 

67. The petitioner accidentally discovered the respondent’s subterfuges of 

twice preventing the petitioner from receiving notice through the mail of orders 

20 


made by the respondent that would have resulted in the loss of the petitioner’s 

property. 

68. The danger now is that the respondent will again take additional actions 

to secure a dismissal through fraud of the petitioner’s remaining state law 

breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, tortuous interference and trade 

secret claims to conceal misconduct the respondent witnessed and did not report 

or participated in and otherwise act out of an interest in the outcome of the 

litigation. 

E. Respondent’s Previous Misuse of the Kansas District Court Clerk’s Office 

69. The respondent permitted judicial law clerks to make use of the Office of 

the Kansas Clerk of the Court to attempt to manufacture a further ethics complaint 

against the petitioner’s counsel to deprive the petitioner of representation. 

70. This was done because the petitioner witnessed the state disciplinary 

proceedings were failing to charge the petitioner’s counsel with anything but the 

conduct the Kansas Rules of Professional Ethics clearly required. 

71. The second concern was that the respondent’s magistrate who had used an 

unrelated case before another Kansas District Court Judge involving the 

petitioner’s counsel had made a mistake at law in targeting the petitioner. 

72. The petitioner’s antitrust and racketeering complaint averred the conduct 

that ultimately resulted in depriving the petitioner of counsel including the 

21 


attempted extortion by the respondent’s magistrate and misuse of the District of 

Kansas Clerk’s office by the respondent’s staff: 

“28. When …[Magistrate]… returned to Kansas City, events still seemed to 

be set against Mr. Bolden’s cause. The notice that the record on appeal was 

complete was erroneously given to the Tenth Circuit, though the mistake was 

clear from the appearance docket that two transcripts that had been ordered 

still were not part of the record. The appeals clerk for Kansas District court 

would not correct the record, Bolden made a motion to correct the record, 

which was not addressed by …[Magistrate]…. See Atch. 10 

29. Bolden’s motion for an extension of time was sent to both the Tenth 

Circuit and the Kansas District Court. However it did not appear on the 

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals appearance docket. Bolden’s counsel called 

the Tenth Circuit and a deputy clerk identified as Kathy stated that it had 

been received two days before but it was still not docketed. After the call 

Kathy reentered on the docket that Bolden’s brief was due January 26th. See 

Atch. 11 

30. On the same day, counsel called the Kansas District Court appeals clerk 

who stated she was working on the letter correcting the date the record was 

complete. However, this letter did not appear on the docket the 25th or even 

the 26th. Bolden’s counsel was forced to work without sleep to file an 

incomplete appellate brief on the 26th emailing the brief to the court and 

counsel for the City and turning in the briefs and appendixes to US Postal 

Delivery service for the Tenth Circuit and the City of Topeka. See Atch. 12 

31. Both the Kansas District Court correction of the record on appeal and the 

Tenth Circuit docketing of the motion for extension occurred after the brief 

and appendix was received, giving the appearance to an impartial observer 

that the events were coordinated to manufacture an ethics violation for 

Bolden’s counsel after the failure of previous attempts.” 

See Exb. 13, Exb 13 Atch 10, Exb 13 Atch 12 and Exb 13 Atch 13. 

II. Memorandum in Support 

The standard of proof to be applied in this inquiry is that of clear and 

convincing evidence. In re Rome, 218 Kan. 198, Syl. p 9, 542 P.2d 676 (1975). 

The petitioner’s complaint provided clear and convincing evidence that the 

ministerial act of the respondent withholding notice of the order accelerating the 

22 


due date for a response to the defendants’ second motion for Rule 12 Dismissal 

violated the Judicial Ethics Cannons. The additional information regarding the 

highly unusual decisions of the respondent in the preceding litigation provides 

reason to infer that withholding notice of an order that is likely to result in the loss 

of the fundamental and substantial property rights the petitioner has been in court 

seeking to recover for more than six years was done out of an impermissible bias 

under the ethics cannons. 

The order signed by the Hon. Robert H. Henry, Chief Circuit Judge states 

that the petitioner is complaining about the respondents rulings and therefore the 

complaint is frivolous. This is a misrepresentation of the petitioner’s complaint 

and reproduces the results the petitioner receives from the respondent and upon 

appeal. This is simply straw man fraud, the complaint described the respondent’s 

ministerial act of preventing the petitioner from receiving notice of an order that if 

neglected would have caused him to lose the property of all his remaining claims. 

“Having erected this straw man, the appellants then shred it…”Limone v. Condon, 372 

F.3d 39 at 46 (1st Cir., 2004). “Courts must be equally careful, however, not to permit a 

defendant to hijack the plaintiff's complaint and recharacterize its allegations so as to 

minimize his or her liability.” Limone id., 372 F.3d 39 at 46. 

judiciary. 

A. Respondent’s Judicial Misconduct 

The respondent has failed to uphold the integrity and independence of the 

23 


The respondent has repeatedly violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A1, 3A2, 3A3, 

3A4, 3A6, 3B2, and 3B3 and should be subjected to proceedings under the 

Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 

U.S.C. §§ 332(d)(1), 351 to 364). The seriousness of the violations, the intent of 

the respondent, the recurring pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the 

improper activity on not only the petitioner, but the defendants and their counsel 

and the judicial systems of the Eighth and Tenth Circuits and the states of Kansas 

and Missouri warrants action by the Judicial Council Tenth Circuit. 

The petitioner, twice by the most improbable chance, was able to learn of 

orders by the respondent that if missed would have resulted in the loss of all the 

petitioner’s claims. The petitioner was therefore not yet injured by the respondent 

in the loss of the fundamental right of access to the court. Maness v. Dist. Court, 

Logan County-Northern Div., 495 F.3d 943 at 944-945 (8th Cir., 2007). 

Comment to 2A to the federal judicial ethics canons states that the 

prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety 

applies to the professional conduct of a judge. 

The then Acting Kansas District Court Clerk may be liable to the petitioner 

for non-discretionary duty of providing the petitioner, a pro se litigant notice and 

service by mail at the petitioner’s address of record for orders by the respondent: 

“Ministerial duties are those of a clerical nature performed in obedience to 

mandate without the exercise of judgment and are therefore not immune 

from suit. Jackson v. Wilson, [581 S.W.2d 39 (Mo.App.1979) ] at 43, Yelton 

v. Becker, 248 S.W.2d 86, 89 (Mo.App.1952).” 

24 


Head v. Platte County, Mo., 749 P.2d 6 at 12, 242 Kan. 442 (Kan., 1988). 

However such liability cannot make the petitioner whole and it is clear that she did 

not even know the petitioner or have any reason to keep him from competing with 

Novation LLC in the national market for hospital supplies. She was either directed 

to deviate from a policy of the court that the petitioner has observed repeatedly 

that she follows vigorously or otherwise improperly communicated to about the 

ongoing litigation. See Akbarnia v. Deming, 845 F.Supp. 788 at 789-790 (D. Kan., 

1994) 

Since staff of the Clerk of the Kansas District court do not read pleadings 

they receive from parties or the court for the purpose of exercising discretion, her 

prejudice if any has come from the respondent and the law clerk’s or magistrate’s 

in this case over which the respondent is responsible for under the judicial canons. 

Smith v. State, 264 Kan. 348, 955 P.2d 1293 at 1301(Kan., 1998). 

The Judicial Conference’s comment on Canon 3A(4) states: 

“Canon 3A(4). The proscription against communications concerning a proceeding 

includes communications from lawyers, law teachers, and other persons who are 

not participants in the proceeding, except to the limited extent permitted. It does 

not preclude a judge from consulting with other judges, or with court personnel 

whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out adjudicative responsibilities. A 

judge should make reasonable efforts to ensure that this provision is not 

violated through law clerks or other staff court personnel.” [Emphasis added] 

The acting Clerk of the Kansas District Court no doubt capably did what she 

was caused to do by the respondent or his staff. However the respondent has still 

committed judicial misconduct. The Proposed Revised Code dated 02/29/08 

contains a comment to Canon 3B(2) that states: 

25 


“A judge is responsible for his or her own conduct and for the conduct of 

others, such as court personnel, when those persons are acting under the 

judge’s direction or control. A judge may not direct court personnel to 

engage in conduct on the judge’s behalf or as the judge’s representative 

when such conduct would violate the Code if undertaken by the judge.” 

The respondent’s magistrate communicated falsely while under oath to the 

Kansas Attorney Disciplinary Panel in January 20005 about the petitioner’s 

litigation which was still ongoing and in appeal. The comment to Canon 3A(6) 

states: “The admonition against public comment about the merits of a pending or 

impending action matter continues until completion of the appellate process.” 

The petitioner in his affidavit (itself attacked without basis by the respondent 

as untruthful in the respondent’s Memorandum and Order of Dismissal) described 

the magistrate staying back to talk ex parte to the tribunal members an extrinsic 

fraud used to procure the disbarment that the petitioner witnessed and no one 

disputes. 

It is well settled, of course, that a judge is not subject to discipline for 

exercising his discretion in performing a judicial act, even if his decision be 

erroneous (In re Laughlin, 153 Tex. 183, 265 S.W.2d 805, appeal dismissed, 

348 U.S. 859, 75 S.Ct. 84, 99 L.Ed. 677; In re McGarry, 380 Ill. 359, 44 

N.E.2d 7). However, not every act of a judge done in the performance of his 

duty is an act of judicial discretion. As the court said in Bar Assn. v. Franko, 

168 Ohio St. 17, 151 N.E.2d 17: 

“Although it is quite true that a mere mistake in the exercise of judicial 

discretion by a judge is not and should never be the cause or subject of a 

disciplinary proceeding under the Canons of Judicial Ethics prescribed by 

26 


this court, we must call attention to the fact that nor everything a judge does 

in connection with his judgeship can be said to be an exercise of his 'judicial 

discretion." 

Bar Assn. v. Franko, 168 Ohio St. p. 30, 151 N.E.2d p. 27. 

The Nebraska Code of Judicial Conduct is based in part on the American 

Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct (1999). Nebraska recognizes 

courts have properly enforced judicial canons and disciplined judges for their 

official conduct: 

“Instances of misconduct during the performance of official duties have also 

resulted in disciplinary sanctions of varying degrees. In re McDonough, 296 

N.W.2d 648 (Minn.1979), involved a judge who was addicted to alcohol and, 

among other things, threatened county and state officers, was absent from his 

duties, and abused those appearing before him. He was censured, ordered to 

forfeit his salary for 3 months, and placed on probation for the remainder of 

his service as a judge. The judge in Matter of Inquiry Concerning a Judge 

No. 481, 251 Ga. 524, 307 S.E.2d 505 (1983), was suspended without pay 

for 15 days for making flippant or derogatory remarks, both in the presence 

of and outside the hearing of the jury during the course of a trial, and 

directing the reporter to "take down nothing further." In In re Romero, 100 

N.M. 180, 668 P.2d 296 (1983), a judge was suspended for 30 days because 

he lacked patience, dignity, and courtesy in dealing with those who appeared 

before him, and otherwise neglected his duties. In Gonzalez v. Com'n on 

Judicial Performance, 33 Cal.3d 359, 657 P.2d 372, 188 Cal.Rptr. 880 

(1983), appeal dismissed --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 690, 79 L.Ed.2d 158 (1984), 

a judge who used his judicial office in efforts to intercede in criminal matters 

involving his friends and benefactors, who required attorneys to post their 

own funds as a condition of granting bail to their clients, who held court in 

the absence of counsel for one or both of the parties, who left the bench 

while evidence was being adduced, and who failed to make a record of 

proceedings was removed 

from office.” 

1984). 

Kneifl, In re, 351 N.W.2d 693 at 700, 217 Neb. 472 at 484-485 (Neb., 

B. Respondent’s Prejudicial Conduct 

27 


The Judicial Conference’s comment on Canon 3A(3) states: 

“The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent 

with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Courts can be 

efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate. The duty under 

Canon 2 to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity 

and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge’s activities, including 

the discharge of the judge’s adjudicative and administrative responsibilities.” 

The respondent has made orders containing false admonishments targeting 

the petitioner and his associates for the purpose of putting the petitioner’s cause in 

a bad light to evade review by a court looking at controlling precedent. The 

respondent is responsible for knowing this conduct is biased or prejudicial where 

the admonishments, threats and sanctions contradict controlling US Supreme 

Court and Tenth Circuit precedent and the express language of Congress that has 

been briefed before him by the petitioner and not refuted by the defendants: 

For example, an average judge would understand that violation of the Code 

of Judicial Conduct would fall within the meaning of "prejudicial conduct" 

even absent our recent decision in Worthen. See 926 P.2d at 868. As noted 

above, canon 3(B)(9) states that it is improper for a judge to "make any 

public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect [the] outcome" 

of a case before another court. Opining as to the ultimate issue before 

another judge is a public comment that may be reasonably expected to affect 

the outcome of that proceeding. In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct, 47 F.3d 

399, 400 (10th Cir.1995)” 

McCully, In re, 942 P.2d 327 at 332 (Utah, 1997). 

When the respondent communicates within orders or causes 

communications to be made to Mr. Fisher, former Clerk of the Tenth Circuit Court 

of Appeals for the purpose of negatively influencing judges reviewing the 

28 


petitioner’s appeal or to other trial judges for the purpose of securing a prejudiced 

outcome in related litigation, the respondent is violating Canon 3B. 

“Canon 3B(9) also plainly states that a judge's public comments are 

restricted while a proceeding is pending or impending "in any court." Given 

this unambiguous language, we conclude that Canon 3B(9)'s limitations on 

public comments apply where a trial judge comments on a matter that is 

before another trial judge or has been taken to an appellate court. See, e.g., 

Broadman v. Commission, 18 Cal. 4th 1079, 959 P.2d 715, 77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 

408 (1998); In re Inquiry of Broadbelt, 146 N.J. 501, 683 A.2d 543 (1996); 

Matter of Hey, supra; Ryan v. Com'n on Judicial Performance, 45 Cal. 3d 

518, 754 P.2d 724, 247 Cal. Rptr. 378 (1988). In limiting the scope of 

commentary regarding pending cases in any court, the rule precludes the 

possibility of undue influence on the judicial process and the threat to public 

confidence posed by a judge from one court or jurisdiction criticizing the 

rulings or technique of a judge from a different jurisdiction. See In re Inquiry 

of Broadbelt, supra. Such comments could affect the outcome of the case, 

appear to exert pressure on a judge to decide a certain way, and undermine 

public confidence in judicial decisions. See id.” 

In re Complaint Against White, 264 Neb. 740 at 67-68 (NE, 2002). 

At the very least the respondent’s admonishments and threats of sanctions 

are a violation of Canon 3A: 

“(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, 

witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom he deals in his official capacity . . 

..' (Rule No. 601, 214 Kan. xciv-xcv.)” 

Rome, In re, 542 P.2d 676, 218 Kan. 198 (Kan., 1975). 

This circuit has the leading federal case In re Charge of Judicial 

Misconduct 47 F.3d 399 for addressing the circumstances where a trial judge 

actually becomes involved in procuring an outcome through extrinsic conduct and 

has determined such conduct violates Canon 2: 

“Canon 2 provided at the time of the events in question that "[a] judge should 

avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's 

29 


activities." A judge should be above the fray; he or she should not be 

influenced by, or appear to be caught up in or contribute to, public clamor. 

When a judge becomes embroiled in a controversy, the line between the 

judge and the controversy before the court becomes blurred, and the judge's 

impartiality or appearance of impartiality may become compromised. Here, 

the Judge's public comments presented the risk of involving the Judge as an 

actor in the events, and, at least in the public's perception, could present the 

appearance that the Judge's impartiality and objectivity had been 

compromised. 

Indeed, the Judge's comments led the Tenth Circuit to vacate and 

remand several of the decisions relating to this case because the Court of 

Appeals found an appearance that the Judge was biased so as to necessitate 

recusal. As a result of the Judge's public comments, each of these cases had 

to be reheard in front of a new judge.” 

Charge of Judicial Misconduct, In re, 47 F.3d 399 (C.A.10 (Jud.C.), 1995). 

C. Vacatur Under 455 Is Appropriate 

The damage done by the respondent is to great for the judicial counsel to 

avoid taking action: 

(a) risk of injustice to the parties in the particular case 

The sole reason the defendants to the petitioner’s Missouri State Law 

Antitrust action are not in a federal court and now cannot obtain removal to a 

federal court is the respondent’s failure to follow controlling US Supreme Court 

and Tenth Circuit case law adopting the transactional approach to preclusion or res 

judicata. The petitioner fully briefed the controlling precedent and quoted 

treatises and even traced this principle from Lawlor to the current decisions of the 

Tenth Circuit. 

Instead, the respondent colluded with the defendants’ local counsel who 

were even unaware of the conduct or interests of their clients and the respondent 

30 


adopted their poorly concealed false misrepresentations of the applicable law to 

accomplish the local firm’s short sited extrinsic fraud strategy. 

US Bank and US Bancorp have been inexplicably divorced from the 

petitioner’s appeal of the dismissal of federal claims and isolated in the 

respondent’s court under a new case number that effectively prevents them from 

sharing their liability with the very profitable healthcare monopolist co-defendants 

that manipulated the into injuring the petitioner in conduct subject to joint and 

several liability. 

(b) the risk that the denial of relief will produce injustice in other cases 

The decisions of the respondent have been used repeatedly in Missouri 

State Court and the Western District of Missouri to attempt to prejudice outcomes 

against the petitioner, even on subsequent conduct and different defendants. Many 

of which are represented by counsel that write motions to dismiss based on the 

respondent’s orders without realizing the seriousness of the case law the petitioner 

diligently subjected his claims to. 

The former Chief Bankruptcy Judge of the Northern District of Illinois 

turned up sharing information in an investigation that resulted because the defense 

firms relying on the respondent’s un-reviewed decisions counseled their clients 

that is was okay to further the hospital supply monopoly by tortuous interference. 

The defendants continued interfering with the petitioner’s attempts to mediate his 

losses from US Bank and US Bancorp’s breach by attempting substitute 

arrangements with third parties. The defendants counsel subjecting their clients to 

31 


this per se liability in the absence of any legal interest, solely to prevent mediating 

or covering damages to lessen the judgment for breach of contract is actually 

beyond belief and defies explanation. The conduct ould only happen in a 

complete vacuum of civil enforcement, a condition nearly created in the national 

market for hospital supplies by the respondent. 

(c) the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the judicial process 

The petitioner was the only remaining electronic marketplace for hospital 

supplies that US Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Novation LL and GE did not effectively 

buy or put out of business. Besides four consecutive years of hearings in the US 

Senate Judiciary Committee, Sub-Committee on Antitrust, six articles in the New 

York Times, a BBC television Channel 4 special and every major presidential 

candidate calling for antitrust enforcement in healthcare it is difficult to imagine a 

more serious set of circumstances that could create impending loss of public 

confidence in the judicial process. 

B. Relief 

In Lauer v. Strang, 788 F.2d 135, 138 (8th Cir.1985), the Eighth Circuit 

concluded that appellate review of judicial conduct obviated the need for 

disciplinary action by the Judicial Council. The respondent has deliberately 

communicated prejudicial information against the petitioner and contrary to 

controlling law in his memorandum and orders despite the absence of any 

discovery that twice resulted in the Tenth Circuit upholding the respondent 

32 


without independent review resulting in orders that contradict the Tenth Circuit’s 

own precedent. 

The Tenth Circuit was unable to review the respondent’s denial of 

injunctive relief that would have prevented all defendants from monetary liability 

because the respondent continued to assert jurisdiction over the Medical Supply I 

case during the interlocutory appeal. Despite the Moot Dismissal of the Appeal 

calling the respondent’s attention to the improperness of this trial court conduct 

after the notice of appeal, the respondent again asserted federal trial court 

jurisdiction over the petitioner’s pendant state law contract claims against US 

Bank and US Bancorp during the Tenth Circuit’s jurisdiction over those same 

claims in the petitioner’s Medical Supply Chain v. Neoforma appeal. 

That appeal was ultimately dismissed over timeliness of the Notice of 

Appeal, however the respondent’s open threatening of the petitioner and his 

representation for any attempt to make post judgment motions or continue the case 

had the foreseeable and intended effect of making it very difficult for the 

petitioner to obtain counsel for the appeal, hence the delay filing the notice. 

(1) Disqualification 

The respondent must now disqualify himself for his conduct under Section 

28 U.S.C. 455(a): 

“Disqualification is mandatory for conduct that calls a judge's impartiality 

into question. See 28 U.S.C. 455(a); In re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d 

764, 783 (3d Cir. 1992). Section 455 does not prescribe the scope of 

disqualification. Rather, Congress "delegated to the judiciary the task of 

33 


fashioning the remedies that will best serve the purpose" of the 

disqualification statute. Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 862. 

At a minimum, 455(a) requires prospective disqualification of the 

offending judge, that is, disqualification from the judge's hearing any further 

proceedings in the case. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 

1463-65 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (per curiam) ("Microsoft I"). Microsoft urges 

retroactive disqualification of the District Judge, which would entail 

disqualification antedated to an earlier part of the proceedings and vacatur of 

all subsequent acts. In re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d at 786 (discussing 

remedy options). 

"There need not be a draconian remedy for every violation of 455(a)." 

Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 862. Liljeberg held that a district judge could be 

disqualified under 455(a) after entering final judgment in a case, even though 

the judge was not (but should have been) aware of the grounds for 

disqualification before final judgment. The Court identified three factors 

relevant to the question whether vacatur is appropriate: "in determining 

whether a judgment should be vacated for a violation of 455(a), it is 

appropriate to consider the risk of injustice to the parties in the particular 

case, the risk that the denial of relief will produce injustice in other cases, 

and the risk of undermining the public's confidence in the judicial process." 

Id. at 864. Although the Court was discussing 455(a) in a slightly different 

context (the judgment there had become final after appeal and the movant 

sought to have it vacated under Rule 60(b)), we believe the test it 

propounded applies as well to cases such as this in which the full extent of 

the disqualifying circumstances came to light only while the appeal was 

pending. In re School Asbestos Litig., 977 F.2d at 785.” 

USA. v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 at 116 (D.C. Cir., 2001). 

(2) Effect of Entitled Rule 60(b) relief 

The petitioner is entitled to Rule 60(b) relief restoring his antitrust action 

against the defendants Neoforma, Novation LLC, US Bank and US Bancorp so 

that discovery can proceed and the claims modified accordingly. Alternatively the 

judicial council can direct the appropriate relief of vacatur of all subsequent acts 

from when the respondent should have recused himself. 

34 


The action has the petitioner’s motion to rewind the proceedings back and 

return to the Western District of Missouri where the important interests of the 

State of Missouri and the interpretation of its laws can be protected. The 

defendants would also be protected by unbiased and competent federal 

proceedings and could seek to retain federal jurisdiction over the pendant Missouri 

state law antitrust claims dismissed by the respondent without prejudice. 

The action could be postponed for the Kansas District court to consider the 

denial of a hearing in the reciprocal disbarment of the petitioner’s counsel by the 

State of Kansas for advocacy of federal rights in the Kansas District court, upheld 

by the Tenth Circuit and subsequent rulings by Kansas District Court Chief Judge 

Vratil. 

(3) Discipline 

The fact of reversal, however, only partially corrects the problem and is 

limited to just those cases. At every step for the last six years there have been well 

educated, adequately trained and compensated personnel of the Tenth Circuit’s 

courts who should have protected the petitioner from this conduct. Instead they 

took no action or worse helped to conceal it. 

If the Tenth Circuit is unwilling to 

publicly state that some of this conduct was wrong, it is unlikely to do anything 

but increase in the future. 

CONCLUSION 

35 


Whereas for the following reasons the petitioner respectfully requests that 

the judicial council stop the continuing violations of Judicial Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 

3A1, 3A2, 3A3, 3A4, 3A6, 3B2, and 3B3 by the respondent. 






816-365-1306 


Pro se 

36 


Date: February, 1 st 2008 

Office of the Circuit Executive 

United States Tenth Circuit 

Byron White United States Courthouse 


Denver, Colorado 80257 

Re: Judicial Ethics Complaint against US District for Kansas Court Judge Carlos Murguia 

Dear Honorable Chief Judge Deanell Reece Tacha 

I am making a judicial ethics complaint against US District for Kansas Court Judge Carlos 

Murguia and his conduct in the following cases: Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v. US Bancorp, NA et al KS. 

Dist. Case No. 02-2539; Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v. General Electric Company, et al., 

case number 03-2324-CM, Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v Novation, et al; KS Dist. Court Case No.: 05-2299 

(Formerly W.D. MO. Case No. 05-0210); 

I am forced to make this complaint against my litigation interests and risk the certain retribution 

despite the recent US History of judges not being disciplined regardless of the seriousness of their 

offenses. 1 The reason I am forced to make this complaint is the urgency that the misconduct is continuing 

and threatens my property and has prevented me from incorporating and for all practical purposes, from 

ever entering the market for hospital supplies. I was stopped from obtaining a case management hearing in 

2002 in the matter that I am still litigating today, just before I was to meet with the Hon. Magistrate Waxse. 

The discoverable and public documents clearly and conclusively prove my claims. A known fact that seems 

to necessitate repeated dismissals before discovery commences. I finally got to the January, 2008 case 

management hearing and Hon. Magistrate Waxse set a schedule including a timetable for dispositive 

motions that the parties mutually agreed to. 

While working on the next exhaustive task of documenting my damages and the controlling case 

law governing discovery, Judge Carlos Murguia issued a minute order having the effect of over ruling the 

case management order and did so by a minute entry with no document, having the effect of giving me no 

notice of the accelerated deadline. 

As the party experiencing the repeated prejudice and misconduct of US District for Kansas Court 

Judge Carlos Murguia I am fully aware of what would have happened to my chances of ever entering the 

market to compete with Novation LLC and lower hospital supply costs and all I have ever worked for if I 

had missed the stealth deadline. 

Each time I have had my claims dismissed based on facially false and readily discernable 

misrepresentations about the contents of my pleadings. This has been coupled with decisions on law 

directly contradicting controlling authority or adopting the defendants’ false legal argument grounded in the 

misrepresentation of whether words stating elements are in my complaints. Each time I have sought 

rehearings, pointing out the clear error of contradicting US Supreme Court authority on the precise issue or 

demonstrating that a federal statute or public law expressly states language for a private right of action, 

Judge Carlos Murguia has denied them. Judge Carlos Murguia has also denied me opportunities to correct 

any deficiencies in my claims. 

Any prejudice against me or my claims by Judge Carlos Murguia cannot be based on an objective 

view of the law or the economic conditions resulting from restraint of trade in the market for hospital 

1 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040813.html 

Exb 1 

Atch 1 Part C Exhibits 


supplies. Similarly, the defendant banking conglomerate US Bancorp has lost evidentiary hearings, been 

fined and settled with the New York Attorney General and the Securities and Exchange Commission for 

their conduct in extorting new healthcare technology companies to the hospital supply marketplace 

controlled by Novation LLC and for conduct in the capitalization of my competitor Neoforma, Inc. If Judge 

Carlos Murguia is acting on ex parte information from the law firms representing the defendants, their 

pleadings reveal a complete absence of knowledge of the crisis preventing Americans from receiving 

healthcare through artificial inflation and restraint of trade. The nation and even the defendants are being 

harmed by Judge Carlos Murguia’s lack of impartiality. 

I have sought judicial review of Judge Carlos Murguia’s misconduct through appeal in Medical 

Supply Chain, Inc. v. US Bancorp, NA et al 10th Cir. Case No.: 02-3443; Medical 

Supply Chain, Inc. v. General Electric Company, et al. No. 04-3075 and 04-3102 (10th Cir.) and Medical 

Supply Chain, Inc. v. US Bancorp, NA et al 10th Cir. Case No.: 03-3342; 06- 3331. This has been frustrated 

by back channel communications fostered in Judge Carlos Murguia’s office that prejudice me and everyone 

associated with helping me in the eyes of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and other courts. The most 

recent appeal decisively showed Judge Carlos Murguia’s error on every point sustaining his ruling and the 

statement of facts documented the blatantly false claims the required pleading elements were not stated 

clearly in my complaint. See Applt Br at pages 19-31, Applee Br.: 2 , 3 

The notice of appeal was not timely. My former counsel Bret D. Landrith never missed deadlines, 

only the defense counsel. I depended on his research and willingness to take my action on contingency as 

Congressional policy provided for. It became essential to the opposing law firms to have him prevented 

from helping me. My former counsel was disbarred over the ex parte communications to the Kansas state 

disciplinary authority fostered by Judge Carlos Murguia and reciprocally disbarred after by Judge Carlos 

Murguia vehement dismissal with sanctions of Medical Supply Chain, Inc. v Novation, et al; KS Dist. 

Court Case No.: 05-2299 (Formerly W.D. MO. Case No. 05-0210) and threats to sanction me or my 

counsel for seeking reconsideration. The past unwillingness of the Tenth Circuit to exercise judicial review 

and the financial sanctions being issued for correctly stating the law made it very dangerous for Dennis 

Hawver and impossible to find replacement counsel. 

Shortly after the appeal was rejected, the national news covered the hospital supply restraint of 

trade problem. In "Blowing the Whistle, Many Times" The New York Times Cynthia Fitzgerald By Mary 

Williams Walsh, November 18, 2007 described hundreds of millions of dollars lost from Medicare by the 

misconduct. 4 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/business/18whistle.html. I have maintained the 

documentary evidence that is the basis for my claims in the above litigation online at 

http://www.medicalsupplychain.com/news.htm and includes four years of US Senate Judiciary Committee 

testimony on the restraint of trade I have raised in my complaint and the conduct of Novation LLC in 

keeping healthcare technology companies from being capitalized. 

The national interest and lives lost from increasing and unaffordable healthcare resulting in the 

lack of competition in hospital supplies has made Judge Carlos Murguia’s dereliction of his duty 

horrifically egregious. Not only I and the legal counsel and other business associates been injured but so 

have the defendants, some of which are publicly traded corporations. Despite Judge Carlos Murguia’s 

willingness to rule for the defendants’ local counsel regardless of their failure to research issues or even to 

be honest about the documents before the court in their written pleadings, the defendant corporations still 

are injured by the non law based outcomes and are unable to change their chargeable conduct and the avoid 

the consequences. Most of all, the integrity of the Kansas District Court and the people of the United States 

who provide for civil enforcement through the courts of Congresses laws against restraint of trade. 

I realize this begins a long road, first to the circuit Judicial Council’s likely unwillingness to 

investigate this complaint, then to the Judicial Conference. Afterwards, without relief I will be forced to 

then seek redress in the legislature and finally through popular sovereignty in changing the policy that 

2 http://www.medicalsupplychain.com/pdf/Novation%20Appeal%20Brief.pdf 

3 http://www.medicalsupplychain.com/pdf/Novation%20&%20US%20Bank%20Reply%20Brief.pdf 

4 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/business/18whistle.html. 


permitted the repeated outcomes here that are contrary to fact and law. I know the Kansas District court and 

practitioners will wish me success. All of whom are hurt by the overt ness of Judge Carlos Murguia’s 

repeated misconduct and whom value our court system and its role in vindicating our national policies. 

I stand ready to provide all documentation and testimony any and every investigation of these 

events may require. 

Sincerely, 


Samuel Lipari 




Phone: 816.365.1306 




Exb 2 


JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

IN RE: CHARGE OF JUDICIAL 

MISCONDUCT 

No. 2008-10-372-08 

Before HENRY, Chief Judge. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Complainant has filed a complaint of judicial misconduct against a district 

judge in this circuit. My consideration of this complaint is governed by 1) the 

misconduct rules issued by the Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit, entitled 

Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability; 2) the federal 

statute dealing with judicial misconduct, 28 U.S.C. § 351 et seq., and 3) the 

“Breyer Report,” a study by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study 

Committee, headed by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, entitled 

Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. The Breyer 

Report may be found at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ 

publicinfo/breyercommitteereport.pdf. To the extent that any relevant prior 

decisions of the full Judicial Council of this circuit consistent with those 

authorities exist, they may also govern my consideration of this complaint. 

Complainant has received or has access to a copy of this circuit’s 

misconduct rules. In accord with those rules, the names of the complainant and 

subject judge shall not be disclosed in this order. See Misconduct Rule 4(f)(1). 

Exb 3 


Complainant takes issue with various rulings by the respondent judge, 

alleging resulting prejudice in multiple underlying cases and related appeals. Any 

claims based solely on the judge’s rulings are not cognizable as misconduct 

because they are “directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural 

ruling.” See Misconduct Rule 4(c)(2). The policy behind this rule is that “the 

complaint procedure cannot be a means for collateral attack on the substance of a 

judge’s rulings.” Breyer Report, App. E., 2. As explained in this circuit’s 

misconduct rules, only a court has the power to change a judge’s ruling. 

Misconduct Rule 1(e). Neither I, acting as Chief Judge, nor the Judicial Council 

of the circuit - both charged with the determination of judicial misconduct matters 

under the federal statute - can do that. 

Complainant also appears to imply that the respondent judge is biased 

against complainant and comments in passing that the judge may have relied on 

ex parte communications with opposing parties in the underlying suits in reaching 

the rulings complained of. These implied claims lack support of any kind, and are 

therefore dismissed pursuant to Misconduct Rule 4(c)(3) (directing dismissal of 

claims that are “wholly unsupported or lacking sufficient evidentiary support to 

raise an inference that some kind of cognizable misconduct has occurred”). 

Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed. The Circuit Executive is directed 

to transmit this order to complainant and a copy to the respondent judge. To seek 

review of this order, complainant must file a petition for review by the Judicial 

-2- 


Council. As set out in the misconduct rules, the petition should be in the form of 

a letter, and need not include a copy of the original complaint or this order. See 

Misconduct Rule 6. The petition must be filed with the Office of the Circuit 

Executive, at the address set out in the rules, within 30 days of the date of the 

letter transmitting this order. Id. 

So ordered this 14th day of March, 2008. 

/s/ Robert H. Henry 

Honorable Robert H. Henry 

Chief Circuit Judge 

-3- 


DJW:mmh 




Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 07-2146-CM-DJW 

US BANCORP, NA, et al., 

Defendant. 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

On January 11, 2008, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), the court conducted a telephone 

scheduling conference with the parties. 1 

Plaintiff appeared pro se. Defendants appeared 

through counsel Jay E. Heidrick and Mark A. Olthoff. 

After consultation with the parties, the court enters this scheduling order, summarized 

in the table that follows: 

1 

As used in this scheduling order, the term “plaintiff” includes plaintiffs as well as 

counterclaimants, cross-claimants, third-party plaintiffs, intervenors, and any other parties 

who assert affirmative claims for relief. The term “defendant” includes defendants as well 

as counterclaim defendants, cross-claim defendants, third-party defendants, and any other 

parties who are defending against affirmative claims for relief. 

O:\ECFDocs\Orders for Signature\07-2146 Sch Ord.wpd 

Exb 4 


SUMMARY OF DEADLINES AND SETTINGS 

Event 

Deadline/Setting 

Plaintiff's settlement proposal 2/4/08 

Defendants' settlement counter-proposal 2/18/08 

Confidential settlement reports to magistrate judge, 

with identification of agreed-upon mediator or other 

ADR neutral 

Mediation or other ADR process completed 

Settlement conference with court 

3/3/08 

N/A 

N/A 

Initial disclosures exchanged 1/15/08 

All discovery completed 7/1/08 

Early discovery completed 

N/A 

Experts disclosed by plaintiff 4/1/08 

Experts disclosed by defendant 5/1/08 

Rebuttal experts disclosed 6/2/08 

Independent medical examinations 

Supplementation of disclosures 

N/A 

40 days before the deadline for 

completion of discovery 

Preliminary witness and exhibit disclosures 5/16/08 

Jointly proposed protective order submitted to court 2/15/08 

Motion and brief in support of proposed protective 

order (only if parties disagree about need for and/or 

scope of order) 

Motions to join additional parties or otherwise 

amend the pleadings 

Motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, 

venue, propriety of the parties, or failure to state a 

claim 

All other potentially dispositive motions (e.g., 

summary judgment) 

Motions challenging admissibility of expert 

testimony 






Comparative fault identification 3/1/08 

Status conference 

Final pretrial conference 

N/A 

7/30/08 @ 10:00 a.m. 

Proposed pretrial order due 7/23/08 

Trial 

3/2/09 @ 1:30 p.m. 

O:\ECFDocs\Orders for Signature\07-2146 Sch Ord.wpd 


PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

Comes now the plaintiff Samuel K. Lipari appearing pro se and makes the following response to the 

defendants’ second motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s initial and un-amended complaint. 

The plaintiff renews his objection to a second motion to dismiss where the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure permit only one. The defendants’ current dismissal is a prohibited second Rule 12 motion to 

dismiss. Palermo, Federal Pretrial Practice: Basic Procedure & Strategy 2001 states at page 21; “Rules 

12(g) and 12(h), read together, provide in general, there shall not be more than one Rule 12 motion to 

dismiss....All defenses and grounds “then available” shall be asserted in the one motion; certain defenses 

shall be asserted in the Rule 12 motion, or in the initial responsive pleading (or amendment thereof) under 

threat of waiver.” 

The plaintiff is also aware of this court’s disposition toward him and his claims embodied by the 

court’s January 24 th , 2008 decision to over rule the Magistrate Judge’s case management schedule and 

require this answer by February 2, 2008. 

An impartial observer could find that the issuance of a minute order changing the schedule without 

accompanying documentation could prejudice a pro se defendant excluded from the electronic case 

management system. 

The plaintiff has no doubt as to what would have been in store for his claims or his future ability to 

enter the hospital supply market and compete against US Bancorp’s co-conspirator Novation LLC had he 

not made the deadline. 

I. Plaintiff's Complaint states colorable claims and demonstrates a plausible entitlement to relief: 

The defendants through their agents the law firm of Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC and the firm’s 

State of Missouri licensed attorneys Mark A. Olthoff KS # 70339, Andrew M. Demarea KS #16141, and 

Jay E. Heidrick KS #20770 have misrepresented to the court the content and words clearly on the face of 

the plaintiff’s complaint and have falsely stated the complaint does not state elements that it clearly does. 1 

1 The court would have been reversed on the most recent appeal for adopting Mark A. Olthoff KS # 70339, 

and Andrew M. Demarea KS #16141 repeated misrepresentations that the elements of the plaintiff’s 

antitrust and racketeering claims were not pled when in fact they were and appeared where the table of 

contents stated they were. The defense counsel were unable to support this court’s rulings in total. 

See Applt Br at pages 19-31: http://www.medicalsupplychain.com/pdf/Novation%20Appeal%20Brief.pdf 

Applee Br at http://www.medicalsupplychain.com/pdf/Novation%20&%20US%20Bank%20Reply%20Brief.pdf 

1 

Exb 5 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


MEDICAL SUPPLY CHAIN, INC., ) 

(Through assignee Samuel K. Lipari) ) 

SAMUEL K. LIPARI ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) Case No. 05-2299 

NOVATION, LLC ) 

NEOFORMA, INC. ) 

ROBERT J. ZOLLARS ) 

VOLUNTEER HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION ) 

CURT NONOMAQUE ) 

UNIVERSITY HEALTHSYSTEM CONSORTIUM ) 

ROBERT J. BAKER ) 

US BANCORP, NA ) 

US BANK ) 

JERRY A. GRUNDHOFER ) 

ANDREW CECERE ) 

THE PIPER JAFFRAY COMPANIES ) 

ANDREW S. DUFF ) 

SHUGHART THOMSON & KILROY, P.C. ) 

Defendants. ) 

PLAINTIFF’S FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT 

AND ANSWER TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Comes now the plaintiff Samuel K. Lipari in his individual capacity and as an assignee of all 

rights of Medical Supply Chain, Inc. a dissolved Missouri corporation and respectfully submits this motion 

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), to alter or amend the judgment. The plaintiff seeks to alter or amend the court’s 

order striking the plaintiff’s motion to reopen the present action under F.R.Civ. P. Rule 60(b). The plaintiff 

also answer’s the court Show Cause Order. 

Statement of Facts 

1. The plaintiff filed a pro se motion on February 13, 2008 for new trial on this court’s dismissal 

order denying the plaintiff’s pro se standing and dismissing the plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice 

under F.R.Civ. P. Rule 60(b). See Exb 1 Motion for New Trial and Exb 2 Plaintiff’s Response to 

Defendant’s Opposition. 

2. The plaintiff filed his motion after this court recognized his standing to proceed pro se as the 

assignee of his dissolved corporation’s claims under Missouri State Law governing corporations in styled 

Lipari v. US Bancorp et al. Case no. 07-cv-02146-CM-DJW, the same case or controversy as Case No. 05- 

2299 as defined by Article III of the U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1367: 

“Missouri law does, however, allow a dissolved corporation to assign its claims to a third- 

1 

Exb. 7 


party. See, e.g., Smith v. Taylor-Morley, Inc., 929 S.W.2d 918 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996) (upholding 

dissolved corporation’s written assignment of rights to a purchase contract). The assignee may sue 

to recover damages for the dissolved corporation’s claims. Id. (holding assignee of dissolved 

corporation’s rights under a purchase contract could sue for injuries to dissolved corporation for 

breach of the purchase contract). Here, plaintiff alleges that he is the assignee of all rights and 

interests of Medical Supply, including the claims in this lawsuit. Accepting as true all material 

allegations of the complaint and construing the complaint in favor of plaintiff, the court finds that 

plaintiff has met his burden at this stage of the proceeding. Defendant’s motion is denied with 

respect to standing.” 

Order signed by Judge Carlos Murguia recognizing plaintiff’s standing as assignee of MSC’s 

claims. Exb 3 Order Lipari v. US Bancorp et al. Case no. 07-cv-02146-CM-DJW at page 2. 

3. This court’s order recognizing the plaintiff’s status as assignee of his federal claims occurred after 

this court’s decision on August 7, 2006, striking four motions filed by the plaintiff. 

4. A reasonable conclusion can be drawn by a reviewing court that the plaintiff’s materially identical 

arguments supporting pro se standing as an assignee of MSC’s claims produced two different results 

because of the intervening decision of the US Supreme Court in Erickson v. Pardus, No. 06-7317 

(U.S. 6/4/2007) (2007) overruling the Tenth Circuit and requiring facts pled in a complaint to be accepted 

as true. 

5. The February 13, 2008 Rule 60(b) filing was a motion and not a pleading. 

6. This court ordered the plaintiff’s F.R.Civ. P. Rule 60(b) motion struck without a hearing. 

7. This court’s order to show cause threatens sanctions against the plaintiff that violate the court’s 

authority and jurisdiction under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

8. The court’s void order striking the plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) if not reversed is a participation in the 

defendants’ unlawful actions to deprive the plaintiff of the representation of an unimpaired attorney 

documented at length in the plaintiff’s complaint dismissed by the court. 

9. Judge Carlos Murguia’s repeated sanctioning of the plaintiff for being correct on the application of 

controlling law of this circuit and in direct contradiction of the express language of Congress providing 

multiple private rights of action in the USA PATRIOT Act and in contradicting the US Supreme Court on 

the lack of preclusion for subsequent antitrust and RICO acts in the Medical Supply litigation has the 

foreseeable ad terrorem effect of depriving the plaintiff of counsel and of capital to enter the market for 

hospital supplies monopolized by the Novation LLC cartel. 

2 


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

The plaintiff’s motion is within ten days of the court’s order striking the plaintiff's Rule 60(b) 

motion and therefore is properly a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), to alter or amend the judgment: 

“A motion to alter or amend presents the court with the opportunity to rectify manifest errors of law 

or fact and to review evidence newly discovered. White v. New Hampshire Dep't of Employment 

Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450-51, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982); Brown v. Presbyterian 

Healthcare Servs., 101 F.3d 1324, 1332 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 

1461, 137 L.Ed.2d 564 (1997); Barrett v. Fields, 941 F.Supp. 980, 984-85 (D.Kan. 1996).” 

Fields v. Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company, 5 F.Supp.2d 1160 at 1161 (D. Kan., 1998). 

The plaintiff has conformed to Rule 7.3 of the local rules for the District of Kansas. 

A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if any of the following three conditions are presented to the 

court: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need 

to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Brumark Corp. v. Samson Resources Corp., 57 F.3d 

941, 948 (10th Cir.1995). 

The plaintiff seeks relief from the striking of his motion for new trial based on (3) “the need to 

correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” 

The plaintiff answer’s this court’s Show Cause Order by citing to controlling case law that the 

plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion is proper. 

I. Standard of review 

The Tenth Circuit will review the district court's denial of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion for abuse of 

discretion. Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 576 (10th Cir.1996) Simply stated, for the 

appeals court to find an abuse of district court's discretion and reverse, the appellate court must have a 

definite and firm conviction that the district court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of 

permissible choice in the circumstances. Moreover, relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary and is 

warranted only in exceptional circumstances. Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th 

Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828, 113 S.Ct. 89, 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992). 

Denial of the plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial over changes in law since the dismissal of the 

plaintiff’s federal claims can be appealed. See John E. Smith's Sons Co. v. Lattimer Foundry & Mach. Co., 

239 F.2d 815 at 816-817 (3rd Cir., 1956). 

3 


II. 

Clear Errors of the Court 

The court lacks the authority or power to strike the plaintiff’s motion under Rule 12(f) and 

Rule 37. The striking violates the plaintiff's fourteenth amendment right to a hearing, and a judgment of 

sanctions in such a case would be void for want of jurisdiction. 

A. Plaintiff’s Motion For New Trial Properly Before The Court 

The plaintiff sought a new trial on the order dismissing his claims based on intervening 

decisions by this court and the US Supreme Court, including Judge Carlos Murguia’s determination he 

had standing as the assignee of Medical Supply Chain’s Claims in this same case or controversy.: 

“A Rule 60(b) motion addresses the district court's judgment and must be presented 

initially to the district court. 12 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 60.60[1] and 

authorities cited therein. Thus, the Respondent's Rule 60(b) motion challenges a judgment of this 

Court and is properly before this Court.” 

Mitchell v. Rees, 430 F.Supp.2d 717 at 721 (M.D. Tenn., 2006). Also “…a motion might contend 

that a subsequent change in substantive law is a "reason justifying relief," Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 60(b)(6), 

from the previous denial of a claim. E.g., Dunlap v. Litscher, 301 F.3d 873, 876 (C.A.7 2002).” Mitchell v. 

Rees, id 430 F.Supp.2d 717 at 722 (M.D. Tenn., 2006). 

Under Rule 60(b), a court may set aside a default judgment "on motion and under such terms as 

are just" for any of the following reasons: 

“(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;(2) newly discovered evidence which by 

due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) 

fraud, (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other 

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, 

released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise 

vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) or 

any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).” 

In re Wallace, 298 B.R. 435 at 439 (B.A.P. 10th Cir., 2003) 

The difference in rulings regarding the plaintiff’s standing to pursue his claims pro se are exactly 

the exceptional or “extraordinary circumstances” in which a New Trial under Rule 60(b) is appropriate: 

“Moreover, an inconsistent application of the law that deprives a party of a right 

accorded to other similarly situated parties presents, "extraordinary circumstances" 

warranting post-judgment relief, including under Rule 60(b)(6). See e.g., Gondeck v. Pan 

American World Airways Inc., 382 U.S. 25, 26-27, 86 S.Ct. 153, 15 L.Ed.2d 21 (1965)(granting 

post-judgment relief on rehearing, in the interest of justice to remedy a misinterpretation of the 

4 


law); Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Byers, 151 F.3d 574, 580 (6th Cir.1998)(extraordinary 

circumstances based upon a post-judgment change in the law); Overbee v. Van Waters & Rogers, 

765 F.2d 578, 580 (6th Cir.1985)(finding extraordinary circumstances and granting relief from 

judgment based on intervening decision of Ohio Supreme Court); Jackson v. Sok, 65 Fed. Appx. 

46, 49 (6th Cir.2003)(per curiam)(upholding grant of Rule 60(b) motion based on intervening 

change in the applicable law).” [Emphasis added] 

Mitchell v. Rees, 430 F.Supp.2d 717 at 725 (M.D. Tenn., 2006). 

This action is the same case or controversy currently before the court in Lipari v. US Bancorp et 

al. Case no. 07-cv-02146-CM-DJW under Article III of the U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and 

which this court continued to exercise jurisdiction over even during the plaintiff’s appeal as this court also 

did during the interlocutory appeal in Medical Supply I. 

By dismissing Medical Supply’s state claims without prejudice, a determination not opposed or 

appealed at the time by the defendants, the trial court elected not to make a preclusive final judgment: “A 

final judgment embodying the dismissal would eventually have been entered if the state claims had been 

later resolved by the court.” Avx Corp. v. Cabot Corp., 424 F.3d 28 at pg 32 (Fed. 1st Cir., 2005). As a non- 

final judgment, the Memorandum & Order granting dismissal was a mere interim order. Id. 

B. Court Lacked Power to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion Under Rule 12(f) 

The court lacks the authority or power to strike the plaintiff’s motion under Rule 12(f). Rule 12(f) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 12(f)") provides that a "court may order stricken from any 

pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). According to the language of Rule 12(f), motions to strike apply only to pleadings and 

not to motions. See Knight v. United States. 845 F. Supp. 1372, 1374 (D. Ariz. 1993); Krass v. Thomson- 

CGR Med. Corp., 665 F. Supp. 844, 847 (N.D. Cal. 1987). 

It is clearly established that the plaintiff’s motion was not a pleading the court could strike: 

“On its own initiative or on a party's motion, the court may strike from a pleading any 

insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter in order to 

avoid the time, effort, and expense necessary to litigate spurious issues. FED.R.CIV.P. 12(f); 

Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir.1993), rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517, 

114 S.Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994). A "pleading" includes a complaint, answer, reply to a 

counterclaim, answer to a cross-claim, third-party complaint, or third-party answer. FED.R.CIV.P. 

7(a). Motions to strike are a drastic remedy, which courts generally disfavor. Stabilisierungsfonds 

Fur Wein v. Kaiser Stuhl Wine Distribs. Pty. Ltd., 647 F.2d 200, 201 (D.C.Cir.1981) (citing 5 C 

FED. PRAC. & PROC. 2d § 1380 at 783); Morse v. Weingarten, 777 F.Supp. 312, 319 

(S.D.N.Y.1991); Mirshak v. Joyce, 652 F.Supp. 359, 370 (N.D.Ill.1987); Schramm v. Krischell, 84 

F.R.D. 294, 299 (D.Conn.1979).” 

5 


Naegele v. Albers, 355 F.Supp.2d 129 (D.D.C., 2005). 

Judge Carlos Murguia is responsible for knowing this is the controlling law of this circuit: 

“Moreover, there is no provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for motions to 

strike motions and memoranda; only motions to strike unsigned papers under Rule 11, third-party 

claims under Rule 14(a), and certain matters in pleadings under Rule 12(f) are contemplated by the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Motions and memoranda are not included within the definition of 

"pleading" under F.R.C.P. 7(a). See James Moore & Jo Desha Lucas, 2A Moore's Federal Practice p 

12.21 at 12-164 (Matthew Bender, 2d ed 1991) ("a Rule 12(f) motion to strike is not appropriate 

with regard to affidavits, parties, or any other matter other than that contained in the actual 

pleadings").” 

Searcy v. Social Sec. Admin.(Unpublished), 956 F.2d 278 (C.A.10 (Utah), 1993). See Exb. 4 

C. Court Lacked Power to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion Under Rule 37 

The other source for a court’s striking authority under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is Rule 

37. Rule 37(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizes courts to employ various sanctions, including 

"striking out pleadings or parts thereof ... or rendering a judgment by default," Rule 37(b)(2)(C), when "a 

party ... fails to obey an order to permit or provide discovery, including an order made under subdivision 

(a) of this rule," Rule 37(b)(2). But, there has been no discovery in this case or controversy (the defendants 

have not even produced requested documents in the continuing state contract claims litigation). 

In similar circumstances as this case, the US Supreme Court found a trial court could not strike a 

filing to punish a party. In Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 413, 444, 17 S.Ct. 841, 843, 854, 42 L.Ed. 215 

(1897), the court held that a court may not strike an answer and enter a default merely to punish a contempt 

of court. The contempt involved in that case was the failure to pay into the registry of the court a fund 

which was the subject of the litigation. The Court held that the entry of default in those circumstances 

violated the defendant's fourteenth amendment right to a hearing, and held further that the judgment in such 

a case would be "void for want of jurisdiction, and may therefore be collaterally attacked," id. at 444, 446- 

47, 17 S.Ct. at 854, 855. 

Hovey v. Elliott was subsequently limited by the decision Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 

U.S. 322, 349-54, 29 S.Ct. 370, 379-81, 53 L.Ed. 530 (1909). Hammond only held, however, that a court 

had the power to strike an answer and enter default when a party failed to produce evidence. "(T)he 

6 


generating source of the power (to strike the answer and enter default) was the right to create a presumption 

flowing from the failure to produce." Id. at 351, 29 S.Ct. at 380. See also Norman v. Young : 

“Hammond pared the Hovey decision by holding that a court could properly strike an answer and 

enter default judgment under circumstances where a party fails to produce documents as ordered. 

The court stated that trial courts have inherent power to presume the bad faith and untruth of an 

answer where the proof was suppressed provided it was essential to the disposition of the case.” 

Norman v. Young, 422 F.2d 470 at 473 (10th Cir., 1970) 

Here the court was not resolving a dispute over discovery which has not yet occurred in the 

Medical Supply Chain litigation and could make no competent judgments on facts in dispute. 

III. 

Court’s Order Striking Rule 60(b) is Void 

The court’s denial or striking of plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion deprives the plaintiff of an important 

federal right, warranting a certificate of probable cause. See Smith, 50 F.3d at 821 (citing Barefoot v. 

Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983)). 

This court’s order striking the plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion is void: 

“For a judgment to be void under Rule 60(b)(4), it must be determined that the rendering court was 

powerless to enter it. If found at all, voidness usually arises for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or 

jurisdiction over the parties. It may also arise if the court's action involves a plain usurpation of 

power or if the court has acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. 11 In the interest of 

finality, the concept of setting aside a judgment on voidness grounds is narrowly restricted. ” 

V. T. A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 597 F.2d 220 at 224-225 (C.A.10 (Colo.), 1979) 

Judge Carlos Murguia has usurped power denied him under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. The plaintiff has the clearly established right to seek relief from any post judgment order 

including an award of attorney fees that might result from the court’s previous sanctions or threatened 

show cause sanctions: 

“Here, the judgment against Pinckney was void. Thus, Pinckney was entitled to restitution under 

Section 60(b)(4). Jordan v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 704 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 991, 

95 S.Ct. 1996, 44 L.Ed.2d 481 (1975) (a Rule 60(b) motion is proper where appellants failed to 

object to an award of attorney's fees and expenses until after the judgment is entered and execution 

proceedings were undertaken); Vander Zee v. Karabatsos, 683 F.2d 832 (4th Cir.1982) (garnisher 

entitled to restitution of payment made on void judgment).” 

Watts v. Pinckney, 752 F.2d 406 at 410 (C.A.9 (Ariz.), 1985). 

7 


IV. 

Court Must Vacate Strike and Show Cause Order 

Judge Carlos Murguia unlawfully instructed the Kansas District Court Clerk to violate the 

established policies of the Kansas District Court and not to give the plaintiff notice of its present Show 

Cause Order through service by mail or by emailing the order to the plaintiff’s email address included 

by the plaintiff in every filing expressly for the purpose of taking property from the plaintiff without 

Due Process and to violate his oath of office and become a participant in the defendants’ conspiracy to 

artificially inflate hospital supplies through the Novation LLC cartel and to commit racketeering acts to 

extrinsically deprive the plaintiff of the opportunity to present hiss evidence. 

Judge Carlos Murguia unlawfully instructed the Kansas District Court Clerk not to mail the 

plaintiff notice after the plaintiff observed that the failure to give notice of a minute order accelerating 

the deadline to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss in Lipari v. US Bancorp et al. Case no. 07- 

cv-02146-CM-DJW would have similarly deprived the plaintiff of his property. It is now recognized 

Judge Carlos Murguia unlawfully instructed the Kansas District Court Clerk to violate the established 

policies of the Kansas District Court and not to give the plaintiff notice of its Minute Order through 

service by mail or by email in Lipari v. US Bancorp et al. Case no. 07-cv-02146-CM-DJW. 

When Judge Carlos Murguia acts overtly to deny the plaintiff of Due Process whether by 

violating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and striking the plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) Motion or by 

depriving the plaintiff of notice and an opportunity to oppose sanctions, Judge Carlos Murguia’s orders 

are void and must be set aside as a consequence of the plaintiff’s present Motion for Reconsideration. 

"A void judgment is a legal nullity and a court considering a motion to vacate has no discretion 

in determining whether it should be set aside." 7 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice, p 60.25 at 301 (2d 

ed. 1973). See also Barkley v. Toland: 

"Rule 60(b)(4) authorizes relief from void judgments. Necessarily a motion under this part 

of the rule differs markedly from motions under the other clauses of Rule 60(b). There is no 

question of discretion on the part of the court when a motion is under Rule 60(b)(4). Nor is there 

any requirement, as there usually is when default judgments are attacked under Rule 60(b), that the 

moving party show that he has a meritorious defense. Either a judgment is void or it is valid. 

Determining which it is may well present a difficult question, but when that question is resolved, the 

court must act accordingly.” 

Barkley v. Toland, 7 Kan.App.2d 625, 646 P.2d 1124 at 1127-1128 (Kan. App., 1982). 

8 


Judge Carlos Murguia’s prior decisions in this litigation appear to be the product of similar 

unlawful conduct against the plaintiff who was sanctioned previously in the order dismissing his federal 

claims on conduct subsequent to Medical Supply I that violated clearly established law on preclusion: 

“The preclusion of claims that "could have been brought" does not include claims that 

arose after the original complaint was filed in the prior action, unless the plaintiff actually asserted 

the claim in an amended pleading, but res judicata does not bar the claim simply because the 

plaintiff elected not to amend his complaint. Pleming v. Universal-Rundle Corp., 142 F.3d 1354, 

1357 (11th Cir. 1998). This is true even if the plaintiff discussed the facts supporting the subsequent 

claim in support of his claims in the prior case. Id. at 1358-59.” 

2008). 

Sherrod v. School Board of Palm Beach County, No. 07-13747 (11th Cir. 4/7/2008) (11th Cir., 

Judge Carlos Murguia violated the show cause notice requirement. The Rule to Show Cause 

requires a reasonable opportunity to respond. “Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c), a court may, 

after notice and reasonable opportunity to respond, impose an "appropriate sanction" upon attorneys, law 

firms, or parties if the court finds they have violated subdivision (b) of that Rule. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c). Rule 

11(b) provides that by presenting a motion to the court, the attorney is certifying that the document (1) "is 

not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass;" and (2) the legal claims made are 

nonfrivolous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). An attorney's conduct is evaluated objectively when it is challenged 

under Rule 11: the applicable standard is that of the reasonable attorney admitted to practice before this 

court. See Adamson v. Bowen, 855 F.2d 668, 673 (10th Cir. 1988). 

CONCLUSION 

Whereas for the above reasons, the plaintiff respectfully requests that the court grant the plaintiff 

relief from the order striking the plaintiff’s Motion to reopen its Memorandum and Order dismissing the 

plaintiff’s claims, and from the Order to Show Cause recognizing the plaintiff had standing and properly 

filed a motion for New Trial. 



____________________ 



9 



816-365-1306 


Pro se 


I certify I have caused a copy to be sent via electronic case filing to the undersigned opposing counsel on 

4/8/08. 







Stephen N. Roberts, Esq. 

Natausha Wilson, Esq. Nossaman, 

Guthner, Knox & Elliott 

34th Floor 

50 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Bruce Blefeld, Esq. 

Kathleen Bone Spangler, Esq. 

Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. 

2300 First City Tower 

1001 Fannin 

Houston, TX 77002 

via email 





____________________ 


10 


Case 2:05-cv-02299-CM-GLR Document 78 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 24 of 30 

and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Sanctions may be 

imposed under § 1927 “for conduct that, viewed objectively, manifests either intentional or reckless 

disregard of the attorney’s duties to the court.” Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504, 1512 (10 th Cir. 

1987). Like Rule 11, the court must apply an objective standard, and subjective bad faith is not a necessary 

showing for application of § 1927 sanctions. Because § 1927 is penal in nature, an award should only be 

made “‘in instances evidencing a serious and standard disregard for the orderly process of justice’” and the 

court must be aware of the “need to ensure that the statute does not dampen attorneys’ zealous 

representation of their clients’ interests.” Ford Audio Video Sys., Inc. v. AMX Corp., Inc., 1998 WL 

658386, at *3 (10 th Cir. Sept. 15, 1998) (quoting Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of Am., Inc., 768 F.2d 

1159, 1165 (10 th Cir. 1985) (internal quotations omitted)). 

The court notes that, pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(A), both groups of defendants requesting sanctions 

gave plaintiff at least twenty-one days notice before filing their motions for sanctions. “The basic 

requirements of due process with respect to the assessment of costs, expenses, or attorney’s fees are notice 

that such sanctions are being considered by the court and a subsequent opportunity to respond.” Braley, at 

1514. Plaintiff responded to defendants’ motions by arguing that claim and issue preclusion do not bar 

plaintiff’s claims, and that defendants violated Rule 11 and § 1927 by requesting sanctions. Plaintiff chose 

not to withdraw or amend its complaint. 

The court finds that sanctions against plaintiff in the form of attorney fees and costs are appropriate 

and necessary pursuant to both Rule 11 and § 1927 for four reasons. First, the mere fact that plaintiff filed a 

nearly unintelligible 115 page complaint, which the court already found violates Rule 8, suggests that 

plaintiff’s complaint, and the instant suit as a whole, was brought for the purpose of harassing defendants or 

-24- 

Exb 8 



the court, causing unnecessary delay and/or needlessly increasing the cost of litigation in violation of Rule 

11(b)(1). Second, as discussed above, not one of plaintiff’s federal claims supports a viable claim for which 

relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). As such, plaintiff’s complaint consists of frivolous claims in 

violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2). Moreover, each of plaintiff’s federal claims lack the 

evidentiary support needed to avoid violating Rule 11(b)(3). Third, plaintiff’s insistence on re-litigating 

claims barred by claim preclusion “unreasonably and vexatiously” “multiplies the proceedings” in violation of 

§ 1927. 

Fourth, and most importantly, plaintiff failed to heed the court’s previous admonitions and sanctions, 

choosing instead to proceed with the instant suit and attempt another bite at the proverbial apple. Plaintiff’s 

previous two claims in this court were dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 

Medical Supply I, 2003 WL 21479192, at *9; Medical Supply II, 2004 WL 956100, at *5. In Medical 

Supply I, the undersigned judge advised plaintiff’s counsel to “take greater care in ensuring that the claims he 

brings on his clients’ behalf are supported by the law and the facts.” Id. at *6. In the same Order, the 

undersigned judged found plaintiff’s allegations “completely divorced from rational thought.” Id. at *8. In 

Medical Supply II, the undersigned judge noted that “at the most fundamental level, plaintiff’s antitrust 

claims fail.” 2004 WL 956100, at *3. 

Both prior dismissals were affirmed by the Tenth Circuit. Medical Supply I, 112 Fed. Appx. at 

731-32; Medical Supply II, 144 Fed. Appx. at 716. In Medical Supply I, the Tenth Circuit ordered 

plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. 112 Fed. Appx. at 731-32. The undersigned 

judge imposed attorney fees totaling $23,956 and double costs as a sanction against Mr. Landrith. Medical 

-25- 



Supply I, 2005 WL 2122675, at *1. In Medical Supply II, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded on 

the issue of sanctions against plaintiff, and the issue of sanctions remains pending. 144 Fed. Appx. at 716 

Plaintiff and its counsel have had plenty of warning about filing frivolous claims from both this court 

and the Tenth Circuit. But plaintiff persisted, filing a third lawsuit against many of the same defendants and 

alleging many of the same claims. Enough is enough. See Brooks v. Couchman, 2006 WL 137415, at *1 

(10 th Cir. Jan. 19, 2006) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s third attempt at the same 

argument, stating that “we have expended valuable court resources on at least two occasions dealing with 

[plaintiff] and his various meritless theories. We repeat our sentiment . . . : ‘We will spend no more judicial 

time or resources addressing his frivolous claims.’” (internal citation omitted)); Sweeney v. Resolution Trust 

Corp., 16 F3d 1, 6-7 (1 st Cir. 1994) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing 

sanctions on plaintiffs for filing a third and “repetitive” motion to remand when the court had previously 

denied two “almost identical motions and made detailed findings of fact”). 

The court may impose sanctions against plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel, or against both with joint and 

several liability. White, 908 F.2d at 685-86. However, “the sanctioning of a party requires specific findings 

that the party was aware of the wrongdoing.” Id. at 685 (citations omitted); Barrett v. Tallon, 30 F.3d 

1296, 1303 (10 th Cir. 1993) (“Thus, in the case of a frivolously pleaded RICO claim, it seems that the court 

should sanction the responsible attorneys rather than the plaintiffs, unless it finds that the plaintiffs insisted, 

against the advice of counsel, that the RICO claim be asserted, or that the plaintiffs had a sufficient 

understanding of the nature, elements, and limitations of the attempted RICO claim to independently evaluate 

its applicability to the alleged facts.”). 

-26- 



Certainly plaintiff’s former counsel, Bret D. Landrith, is culpable. Mr. Landrith was the attorney of 

record when each of the sanctionable motions were filed, and Mr. Landrith signed and authored the 

complaint and each of the motions before the court. Nonetheless, sanctions against plaintiff are also 

appropriate for two reasons. First, plaintiff’s CEO and sole shareholder, Samuel Lipari, takes responsibility 

for the decisions to knowingly bring the instant lawsuit after the result of plaintiff’s previous attempts at 

litigation. For instance, Mr. Lipari’s affidavit, entitled “Affidavit of Sam Lipari on The Unsuitability of 

Transfer,” states: 

I chose to bring this new action in Missouri District court because I have a 

responsibility to Medical Supply’s stakeholders . . . to adjudicate these claims. 

I brought two earlier and related actions to Kansas District court based on the 

advice of my counsel. I have witnessed first hand that no decision or outcome in 

either case including from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had any 

relationship to the pleadings of my company or applicable law. I make this 

determination based on my considerable personal experience as a clerk and 

researcher for a Missouri legal firm and upon discussion with what I believe are 

the foremost healthcare antitrust authorities in our nation. 

(Doc. 30, exh. 1). Mr. Lipari’s affidavit continues with a litany of conspiracy theories involving defendants, 

this court, and other government agencies and employees. Significantly, however, Mr. Lipari’s affidavit also 

discusses numerous instances when he actively participated in prior and current litigation. Mr. Lipari’s 

affidavit also discusses attending one of Mr. Landrith’s disciplinary conferences. Thus, Mr. Lipari was wellaware 

of the legal arguments and allegations being brought by his attorney, as well as the disciplinary 

allegations against Mr. Landrith prior to his disbarment. Even so, plaintiff chose to continue vigorously 

litigating the instant case. Second, after Mr. Landrith was disbarred, plaintiff chose to retain new counsel 

and continue litigating this case. Therefore, sanctioning plaintiff as well as Mr. Landrith serves to deter both 

from future frivolous filings. 

-27- 



In sum, the court finds that defendants’ reasonable attorney fees and costs against plaintiff and Mr. 

Landrith jointly and severally is the minimum amount of sanctions necessary to “adequately deter the 

undesirable behavior.” White v. Gen. Motors, 977 F.2d 499, 502 (10 th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations and 

citations omitted). 

E. Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification of Order in Case No. 03-2324 (Doc. 45) 

Plaintiff’s motion for clarification seems to request this court to clarify its ruling in a separate case, 

case number 03-2324, which found that plaintiff’s request to consolidate case number 03-2324 with the 

instant case is moot. Case number 03-2324 was closed as of February 13, 2004, with attorney fees the 

only remaining issue. The court need not address this motion for two reasons. First, plaintiff has previously 

requested the court to “clarify” its decision in case number 03-2324, and the court found plaintiff’s request 

moot in light of the posture of the case. Second, plaintiff’s instant case will soon be closed, as the instant 

Memorandum and Order’s holdings dismiss plaintiff’s entire complaint. Therefore, the issue of whether to 

consolidate two closed cases is a moot one. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Robert Zollars’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 

Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 2); Defendant Neoforma, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, [sic] Complaint, or 

Alternatively to Require Amendment, Pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rules 8 and 9 (Doc. 4); Defendants US 

Bancorp, U.S. Bank National Association, Piper Jaffray Companies, Jerry A. Grundhofer, Andrew Cesare 

and Andrew S. Duffs’ Motion to Transfer, Dismiss and/or Strike (Doc. 6); Defendants Curt Nonomaque 

and Robert Baker’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and for Failure 

to State a Claim (Doc. 11); Defendant Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C.’s Motion to Transfer, Dismiss 

and/or Strike (Doc. 13); Defendants US Bancorp, U.S. Bank National Association, Piper Jaffray 

-28- 


Case 2:05-cv-02299-CM-GLR Document 104 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 4 of 5 

S.W.2d 171, 176 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). Therefore, even though Medical Supply was dissolved, its 

corporate existence continues for purposes of proceeding with this litigation. Medical Supply 

remains the sole plaintiff in this case. 

Moreover, Mr. Lipari cannot proceed pro se on behalf of Medical Supply because a pro se 

individual may not represent a corporation. See Nato Indian Nation v. State of Utah, 76 Fed. Appx. 

854, 856 (10 th Cir. 2003) (“Individuals may appear in court pro se, but a corporation, other business 

entity, or non-profit organization may only appear through a licensed attorney.”) (citations omitted). 

The court also finds that Mr. Lipari may not substitute himself for Medical Supply. Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c), which governs the procedural substitution of a party after a transfer of 

interest, states: “In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the 

original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to 

be substituted in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c) (emphasis added). As evidenced by the plain 

language of Rule 25(c), the court has discretion to allow Mr. Lipari to substitute. Prop-Jets, Inc. v. 

Chandler, 575 F.2d 1322, 1324 (10 th Cir. 1978). The court declines to exercise its discretion, 

however, because this case has been dismissed, and substitution will not change that outcome. 

Mr. Lipari also argues that because the court sanctioned him personally, the court should 

allow him to represent himself pro se. Mr. Lipari is mistaken. The court sanctioned Medical Supply, 

not Mr. Lipari. Although the court discussed Mr. Lipari’s personal involvement in the litigation in its 

ruling opposing sanctions against plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel, it did so for the purpose of 

demonstrating plaintiff’s culpability. It is irrelevant that Mr. Lipari, as Medical Supply’s sole 

shareholder, is ultimately liable for plaintiff’s sanctions. 

For the above-mentioned reasons, the court strikes each of Mr. Lipari’s pending motions, 

including Documents 80, 92, 95 and 102. Consistent with this ruling, the court cautions Mr. Lipari 

-4- 

Exb 9 


Case 2:05-cv-02299-CM-GLR Document 104 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 5 of 5 

against filling additional motions. Of course, plaintiff may allow Mr. Hawver or other counsel to 

represent it. But the court reiterates that it dismissed plaintiff’s case with prejudice and sanctioned 

plaintiff for violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Plaintiff has a 

history of filing frivolous lawsuits and motions, for which the court has sanctioned plaintiff on 

several occasions. Future attempts to resurrect this case could result in the court imposing additional 

sanctions. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Ira Dennis Hawver’s Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 81) 

is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 80); 

plaintiff’s Motion Under Rule 15 for Leave to Rewrite and Amend Complaint to Cure Any Defects 

Requiring Dismissal Remaining After Outcome of Reconsideration Motion (Doc. 92); plaintiff’s 

Motion to Strike Documents # 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93 (Doc. 95); and plaintiff’s 

Motion to Rewind Action and Return Proceeding to the Western District of Missouri in the Interest 

of Justice Under 28 U.S.C. [§] 1631 (Doc. 102) are hereby stricken from the record. 

Dated this 7 th day of August 2006, at Kansas City, Kansas. 

s/ Carlos Murguia 

CARLOS MURGUIA 

United States District Judge 

-5- 


560. Plaintiff is entitled to recover their actual damages in the amount of in excess of $500,000,000.00 

for their actions resulting in the loss of trust accounts, and actual damages in the amount of in excess of 

$500,000,000.00 for their actions resulting in the loss of the lease sale together with the costs of suit, and 

attorney fees. 

561. Defendants’ actions were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive. 

562. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00. 

563. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 562. 

COUNT XIV 

DAMAGES FOR PRIMA FACIE TORT 

564. To whatever extent said activities of Defendants may not violate antitrust laws or tortuously 

interfere with contract or business expectancy, said acts and activities of Defendants are still unlawful and 

fraudulent. 

565. Said activities were intended by Defendants and performed by Defendants. 

566. Said activities were intended by Defendants to cause injury to Plaintiff. 

567. Said activities did directly and proximately cause injury to Plaintiff. 

568. Said activities were and are unjustified. 







COUNT XV 

DAMAGES FOR RACKETEERING 

INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATION (RICO) CONDUCT 

(18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)) 

572. Plaintiff realleges paragraph 1 through 571. 

573. On January 21, 2005 Medical Supply discovered the Defendants’ pattern of inflicting injuries on 

the plaintiff to obstruct its entry into the market for hospital supplies and hospital supplies in e-commerce. 

An important component of the Defendants’ scheme was to interdict capital required by Medical Supply to 

107 

Exb 10 


enter the market. The Defendants targeted Medical Supply’s founder in 1995 and targeted Medical Supply 

upon its incorporation in 2000. From the outset, the Defendants have maintained a continuous pattern of 

preventing an independent clearinghouse electronic market place from interfering with their common 

enterprise to to artificially inflate prices paid by Medicare, Medicaid and Champus. 

574. The Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) by conducting a RICO enterprise (the hospital group 

purchasing enterprise to artificially inflate prices paid by Medicare, Medicaid and Champus) through a 

pattern of racketeering activity. 

575. The Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) through participation in a RICO conspiracy. 

576. The Defendants engaged in (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of 

racketeering activity. 

577. The Defendants participated in the operation and management of the hospital group purchasing 

enterprise to artificially inflate prices paid by Medicare, Medicaid and Champus itself. 

578. When Medical Supply sought to appeal the outcomes in the Kansas District Court, the Defendants 

sought the assistance of Shughart Thomson & Kilroy to intimidate, harass and obstruct Medical Supply and 

prevent Medical Supply and its agents from testifying and preventing evidence in federal court. 

579. To realize that goal the Defendants directly and tacitly caused Shughart Thomson & Kilroy to 

create and arrange for Medical Supply’s counsel to receive repeated ethics complaints and to be prosecuted 

by the State of Kansas Disciplinary Administrator based on the false and misleading testimony of Shughart 

Thomson & Kilroy’s former managing partner, a federal magistrate judge and a sham complaint made by 

the Shughart Thomson & Kilroy counsel defending US Bancorp and Piper Jaffray. 

580. Shughart Thomson & Kilroy through its employees and past employees created the plan to 

retaliate against and intimidate and harass Medical Supply’s counsel when they discovered Medical Supply 

could not obtain outside counsel due to conflicts of interest in law firms the plaintiff had approached. 

581. Shughart Thomson & Kilroy through its employees and past employees implemented the plan and 

carried out its operations with the intent and motive of making sure that the Defendants could continue the 

enterprise to monopolize the markets in hospital supplies, hospital supplies sold in e-commerce and the 

capitalization of healthcare technology and supply chain management companies without challenge by the 

US District Court. 

108 


582. The Defendants implicitly ratified Shughart Thomson & Kilroy’s conduct on their behalf and 

relied on the conduct to attempt to avoid Medical Supply’s intention to seek redress. Shughart Thomson & 

Kilroy engaged in "racketeering activity" as that term has been defined by Congress, see 18 U.S.C. § 

1961(1). 

583. The Defendant Shughart Thomson & Kilroy through its officers, employees and agents injured 

Medical Supply in violation of 18 USC § 1503 when it caused false and misleading testimony to be given 

against Medical Supply’s counsel and again when it caused its employee to file a facially void ethics 

complaint against Medical Supply’s counsel. The purpose of the Defendant Shughart Thomson & Kilroy’s 

complaint was intimidation and harassment of Medical Supply’s counsel to interfere with the 

administration of justice in the federal antitrust action against the Defendants. 

584. 18 USC § 1503 entitled “Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally” provides: 

“(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, 

endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of 

the United States,… in the discharge of his duty…or injures any such officer,… in his person or 

property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or 

by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to 

influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in 

subsection (b).” 

585. The Defendant Shughart Thomson & Kilroy through its officers, employees and agents injured 

Medical Supply in violation of 18 USC § 1513 when it caused false and misleading testimony to be given 

against Medical Supply’s counsel and again when it caused its employee to file a facially void ethics 

complaint against Medical Supply’s counsel to deprive him of property in the form of his license to practice 

law. The purpose of the Defendant Shughart Thomson & Kilroy’s retaliation against Medical Supply’s 

counsel was to interfere with the administration of justice in the federal antitrust action against the 

Defendants. 

586. 18 USC § 1513 entitled “Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant” provides: 

“(e) [2] Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, 

including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a 

law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission 

of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. 

(b) Whoever knowingly engages in any conduct and thereby causes bodily injury to another person 

or damages the tangible property of another person, or threatens to do so, with intent to retaliate 

against any person for— 

109 


(1) the attendance of a witness or party at an official proceeding, or any testimony given or any 

record, document, or other object produced by a witness in an official proceeding; or 

(2) any information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a 

violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial 

proceedings given by a person to a law enforcement officer;” 

587. In furtherance of their enterprise to artificially inflate healthcare costs, the Defendants stole 

copyrighted works to keep Medical Supply from realizing its plan to enter the market for hospital supplies. 

The Defendants stole copyrighted works that included business plans, algorithms, confidential proprietary 

business models, customer and associate lists from Medical Supply Chain, Inc. in 2002 and from its 

predecessor company Medical Supply Management in 1995 and 1996 in violation of 17 USC § 506 entitled 

“Criminal offenses” providing: 

“(a) Criminal Infringement.— Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either— for purposes 

of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or 

by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 

or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of 

more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. 

For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by 

itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.” 

588. The Defendants violation falls under 18 USC § 2319 entitled “Criminal infringement of a 

copyright” which provides: 

“(a) Whoever violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished 

as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any 

other provisions of title 17 or any other law.” 

589. Defendants violated The Hobbs Act prohibition against racketeering by preventing Medical 

Supply’s entry into commerce under color of official right in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951, which states: 

“Section 1951. Interference with commerce by threats or violence 

Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects 

commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, 

by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or 

commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in 

furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of 

this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more 

than twenty years, or both. 

b) As used in this section – The term ''extortion'' means the obtaining of property from another, 

with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or 

threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official 

right.” 

590. Defendants interfered with and obstructed Medical Supply’s entry into market by threatening the 

plaintiff with the filing of a USA PATRIOT Act suspicious activity report which would destroy the 

110 


plaintiff’s ability to make financial wire transactions with corresponding banks required to effectively 

compete in the market for hospital supplies. 

591. As a direct result Defendants’ unlawful activities, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer 

substantial injuries and damages to their businesses and property. 

592. Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual damages in the amount of approximately $500,000,000.00, 

multiplied by three for total damages of approximately $1,500,000,000.00, and the cost of suit including a 

reasonable attorney’s fee. 

COUNT XVI 

DAMAGES FOR MALICIOUS FILING OF A SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY 

REPORT (SAR) UNDER THE USA PATRIOT ACT 

(Pub. L. No. 107-56 (2001),18 U.S.C.§1030 (e), 31 U.S.C. § 5318 (g)(3)) 

593. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 592. 

594. On information and belief the Defendants through US Bank and US Bancorp NA and maliciously 

filed a suspicious activity report (“SAR”) concerning Medical Supply and its founder Samuel Lipari with 

federal authorities for the purpose of securing a financial benefit for the Defendants including US Bank and 

US Bancorp NA and were not protected by the safe harbor provisions of 31 U.S.C. § 5318 (g)(3). 

595. The USA PATRIOT Act § 310. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network requires the maintenance 

of a government wide data access service and data banks for financial crime reporting including suspicious 

activity reports. In threatening to cause a malicious suspicious activity report or in causing a malicious 

suspicious activity report t be filed against Medical Supply, the defendants have violated 18 U.S.C.§1030. 

596. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept 

and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (The USA PATRIOT Act) Pub. L. No. 107-56 (2001), 115 Stat. 272. 

at § 814 of the USA PATRIOT Act entitled DETERRENCE AND PREVENTION OF 

CYBERTERRORISM created a private right of action for Medical Supply to address the conduct of the 

Defendants in gaining access to the FINCEN network for the purpose of filing a suspicious activity report 

to prevent Medical Supply from providing hospital supplies and reducing healthcare costs. 

597. The USA PATRIOT Act amended 18 U.S.C.§1030 to include a cause of action for impairment, or 

potential impairment of medical diagnosis, treatment or care, physical injury, a threat to public health or 

safety. 

111 


598. The USA PATRIOT Act reaffirmed the civil liability and private rights of action provisions of 18 

U.S.C.§1030 (e) DAMAGES IN CIVIL ACTIONS- to include civil liability for any person may maintain 

a civil action for damages and injunctive relief. 

599. 18 U.S.C.§1030 provides: 

18 U.S.C.§1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers 

Whoever - knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected 

computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and 

by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains 

anything of value, 

(5) 

(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without 

authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; 

and 

(B) by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of 

subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted 

offense, would, if completed, have caused) - 

(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential 

modification or impairment, of the medical examination, 

diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals; 

(iii) physical injury to any person; 

(iv) a threat to public health or safety; 

(g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a 

violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the 

violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or 

other equitable relief. A civil action for a violation of this 

section may be brought only if the conduct involves 1 of the 

factors set forth in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) of 

subsection (a)(5)(B). Damages for a violation involving only 

conduct described in subsection (a)(5)(B)(i) are limited to 

economic damages. No action may be brought under this subsection 

unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act 

complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage.” 

600. The USA PATRIOT Act) Pub. L. No. 107-56 (2001), 115 Stat. 272. at § 351 modified 31 U.S.C. § 

5318 (g)(3) to eliminate immunity from civil liability for malicious suspicious activity reporting: 

“(g) Reporting of suspicious transactions.-- 

In General.-The Secretary may require any financial institution, and any director, officer, employee, 

or agent of any financial institution, to report any suspicious transaction relevant to a possible 

violation of law or regulation. 

* * 

Liability for disclosures.-- 

In general.-Any financial institution that makes a voluntary disclosure of any possible violation of 

law or regulation to a government agency or makes a disclosure pursuant to this subsection or any 

other authority, and any director, officer, employee, or agent of such institution who makes, or 

requires another to make any such disclosure, shall not be liable under law or regulation of the 

United States, any constitution, law, or regulation of any State or political subdivision of any State, 

or under any contract or other legally enforceable agreement (including any arbitration agreement), 

112 


for such disclosure or for any failure to provide notice of such disclosure to the person who is 

subject of such disclosure or any other person identified in the disclosure.” 

601. The Act specifies that financial institutions are to report" any possible violation of law or 

regulation." Congress did not intend the Act's safe harbor to give banks blanket immunity for malicious, 

willful criminal and civil violations of law. 

602. Importantly, the Act requires there to be a "possible" violation of law-"possible" being the 

operative word-before a financial institution can claim protection of the statute. 

603. The Defendants knew there was no possible violation and that the USA PATRIOT Act know your 

customer provision did not apply to the subject escrow accounts. 

604. US Bank and US Bancorp did not file a report of a "possible violation" of the law but rather acted 

maliciously and willfully in an attempt to have Medical Supply deprived of high level banking services 

including international wire fund transactions on information the defendants knew to be false. 

605. Said activities aforementioned by Defendants were done in concert and in secret with the intention 

to injure Plaintiff all the while knowing that the lack of candor and disclosure of the true acts and activities 

by Defendants would give Defendants an economic advantage over Plaintiff. Defendants were engaged in 

concealed fraudulent conduct. 

606. Said malicious suspicious activity reporting against Medical Supply and its founder Samuel Lipari 

was done with the purpose of restricting the availability of and access to hospital supplies and resulted in 

impairment and potential impairment of medical diagnosis, treatment and care, along with physical injury, 

and constituted a threat to public health and safety 

607. Said activities were intended by Defendants to cause injury to Plaintiff by and through intentional 

misrepresentations to third parties concerning Plaintiff. 

608. Said activities did directly and proximately cause injury to Plaintiff. 

609. Said activities were and are unjustified. 





113 




TOLLING OF APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS 

613. Plaintiff could not have reasonably discovered its injuries, or that its injuries were wrongfully 

caused, until January 21st, 2005, when Shughart Thomson & Kilroy’s former managing partner testified 

under oath in the Kansas Attorney Disciplinary Prosecution of the plaintiff’s counsel. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands: 

(1) That Defendants, their agents and servants, be enjoined during the pungency of this action and 

permanently from their activities in unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce and in monopolizing, 

attempting to monopolize, or combining or conspiring to monopolize. 

(2) That Defendants be required to pay to Plaintiff such damages as Plaintiff has sustained in 

consequence of Defendants’ activities in unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce and in 

monopolizing, attempting to monopolize, or combing or conspiring to monopolize, in the amount of 

approximately $500,000,000.00, multiplied by three for total damages of approximately 

$1,500,000,000.00 for the conduct related to the refusal to provide trust accounts and approximately 

$500,000,000.00, multiplied by three for total damages of approximately $1,500,000,000.00 for the 

conduct related to preventing Medical Supply from selling the office building lease to General Electric 

Transportation Co. for a total of approximately $3,000,000,000.00. 


consequence of Defendants’ activities in tortuous interference with contract or business expectancy and/or 

in prima facie tort, in the amount of approximately $1,000,000.00, together with punitive or exemplary 

damages for the same, in an amount in excess of $10,000.00. 

(4) Medical Supply Chain, Inc. seeks damages for the injury of its business associates and 

stakeholders, including Blue Springs, Missouri, loss of good will and the injury of the 2000 hospitals 

loosing money due to high supply costs under Mid Atl. Telecom, Inc. v. Long Distance Servs., Inc., 18 

F.3d 260, 263 (4th Cir.1994)’s interpretation of standing on a RICO statutes having a common antitrust 

basis. 

114 



consequence of Defendants’ activities in violation of civil racketeering laws, in the amount of 

approximately $500,000.00, multiplied by three for total damages of approximately $1,500,000.00. 


consequence of Defendants’ activities in violation of the USA PATRIOT Act, in the amount of 

approximately $500,000.00. 

(7) That Defendants pay to Plaintiff the costs of this action and reasonable attorney’s fees to be 

allowed to the Plaintiff by the Court. 

(8) That Plaintiffs have such other and further relief as is just. 

CONCLUSION 

Whereas for the above reasons, the plaintiff respectfully request that the court award damages and 

provide other relief, attorneys fees and costs. 

Respectfully Submitted 

S/Bret D. Landrith 

Bret D. Landrith 

Kansas Supreme Court ID # 20380 

2961 SW Central Park, # G33, 

Topeka, KS 66611 

1-785-876-2233 

1-785-267-4084 

landrithlaw@cox.net 

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 

Comes now plaintiff and makes demand for a trial before 8 jurors. 



Kansas Supreme Court Number 20380 

DESIGNATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL 

Comes now plaintiff and designates Kansas City, Missouri as the place of trial. 




115 




KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 


Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) Case No. 05-2299-KHV 

NOVATION, LLC ) Formerly W.D. MO. Case No. 05-0210 

NEOFORMA, INC. 

) Attorney Lien 







US BANK ) 

JERRY A. GRUNDHOFFER ) 

ANDREW CESERE ) 



SHUGHART THOMSON & KILROY ) 

WATKINS BOULWARE, P.C. ) 

Defendants. ) 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF FIRST PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT UNDER F. R. CIV. P. LOCAL RULE 56.1 

Comes now the plaintiff Medical Supply Chain, Inc., through its counsel Bret D. Landrith and 

makes the above captioned memorandum in support of plaintiff’s first motion for partial summary 

judgment. Medical Supply respectfully requests rulings that each defendant is distinct from the RICO 

enterprise, that a defendant's liability for RICO conspiracy does not require that defendant to participate in 

the operation or management of the enterprise, that RICO liability extends to aiders and abettors and that 

the law firm Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, Watkins, Boulware, P.C. (Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy) is 

properly a RICO Defendant. The plaintiff’s suggestion that summary judgment motions be bifurcated was 

not controverted and the plaintiff expects to file fact based summary judgment motions based on the 

defendants’ per se antitrust violations. Medical Supply respects the court grant this pure legal question 

summary judgment for the following reasons: 

STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LEGAL ISSUES 

1. On September 2, 2005, The Kansas City Business Journal published an article about the racketeering 

conduct of Shughart Thomson & Kilroy’s nearest Kansas City competitor Shook, Hardy and Bacon 

LLP. See Exb. 1 

1 

Exb 1 


2. The Notre Dame law School Professor G. Robert Blakey was interviewed and stated it was wrong for 

the law firm not to be made a defendant in the civil RICO action against the tobacco companies. See 

Exb. 1, pg. 1 

3. On August 15, 2005, the US Justice Department filed a post trial proposed finding of fact in the civil 

racketeering case against tobacco companies mentioning at least 15 Shook Hardy lawyers by name and 

referring to the firm more than 250 times. See Exb. 1, pg. 1, Exb 2 generally. 

4. On August 24, 2005, the US Justice Department filed a post trial brief arguing with controlling legal 

authority that the law firm Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP had the requisite intent to be liable as a RICO 

person. See Exb 3 generally. 

5. Medical Supply filed an amended complaint against Unknown Healthcare, for Brian Kabbes, for Lars 

Anderson, for Susan Paine, for Andrew Cesere, for Piper Jaffray, for Mutual Fund Services, for 

Institutional Trust, for Corporate Trust, for US Bank Private and for US Bancorp, NA some of whom 

are the current defendants on See Exb 4 generally. 

6. The complaint described the defendants’ conduct violating the Hobbs Act against racketeering in 

keeping Medical Supply out of the market to further the defendants’ monopolization of the hospital 

supplies by falsely using the USA Patriot Act “know your customer” provision and the US Bank’s 

official role enforcing the USA Patriot Act. See Exb 4 pg. s 44-47 

7. The witnessed conduct was attested to by Sam Lipari in an affidavit at the end of the complaint. See 

Exb 4 pg.68 

8. The plaintiff was unsuccessful in obtaining injunctive relief to prevent the defendants’ monopolization. 

9. Medical Supply notified the non defendant hospital supply cartel members participating in the 

agreement to boycott Medical Supply in December 2004. See Novation Complaint Exb 5 pg.s 85-86. 

10. Shughart Thomson & Kilroy a law firm stepped up their efforts to obstruct justice and prevent medical 

Supply from having representation and legal resources to expose the cartel’s monopolization of 

hospital supplies. See Novation Complaint Exb 5 pg. 108-111 

11. The Shughart Thomson & Kilroy lawyer Andrew DeMarea filed a fraudulent Kansas Disciplinary 

complaint against Medical Supply’s counsel for appealing a trial court ruling the Tenth Circuit panel 

2 


admitted was incorrect about the USA Patriot Act statute. See De Marea Complaint Exb 6 pg.1, See 

also Tenth Circuit Sanction order, Exb 7. 

12. Andrew DeMarea’s former boss, Kansas US District Court Magistrate James P. O’Hara altered his 

testimony on the stand on January 21, 2005 revealing for the first time the defendants’ continuing 

pattern and practice of racketeering to Medical Supply’s President and counsel. See Novation 

Complaint Exb 5 pg., See also Magistrate O’Hara Testimony Sup 1 Atch 9 pg.s 609-669 

13. Medical Supply then documented the newly discovered pattern events and incorporated the into the 

complaint filed against the defendants for damages resulting from the earlier injury Medical Supply 

had tried to enjoin. See Supplement 1, Federal Bureau of Investigation Complaint and Sup.1 Atch 1 

thru 13. 

14. The extra legal or outside of court racketeering to obstruct justice, intimidate and retaliate against 

witnesses and victims is still continuing and has led to injury of Medical Supply principals. See 

affidavit of Sam Lipari Exb. 8 generally. 

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES 

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate if the 

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if 

any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material facts are those that “might affect the outcome 

of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 

In considering a summary judgment motion, “the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all 

justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255; see also Washington Post Co. v.United 

States Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 865 F.2d 320, 325 (D.C. Cir. 1989). 

Additionally, summary judgment is appropriate for purely legal questions. See generally Moore's 

Federal Practice, P56.20(3.-2)(2ded. 1976). A determination on a strict legal issue can "narrow the issues 

in [a] case, advance the progress of the litigation, and provide the parties with some guidance as to how 

they proceed with the case." Warner v. United States, 698 F. Supp. 877, 879 (S.D. Fla. 1988). "Summary 

judgment can thus serve to set the issues for trial .... The outcome of [the] dispute will have an immediate 

3 


impact on the proofs to be offered at trial in support of the elements of the statutory causes of action." 

Disandro v. Makahuena Corp., 588 F. Supp. 889, 892 (D. Haw. 1984); see also Lies v. 

Farrell Lines, Inc., 641 F.2d 765, 768-69 (9th Cir. 1981). 

The party opposing the motion "'may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings' 

to avoid summary judgment. Bacchus, 939 F.2d at 891 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S. Ct. at 

2510).” Bancoklahoma Mortgage Corp. v. Capital Title Co., 194 F.3d 1089 at 1097-1098 (10th Cir., 1999). 

Plaintiff, Medical Supply Chain, Inc. (Medical Supply),has brought this suit against the 

Defendants1 pursuant to Sections 1962(c) and (d) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 

Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq.. Medical Supply alleges violations of both Sections 1962(c) 

and (d). 1 

To prove the alleged violations of Section 1962(c), Medical Supply must show: (1) the conduct 

(2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern of racketeering activity." Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 

62 (1997). S. P. R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U. S. 479, 496 (1985); BancOklahoma Mortgage Corp. v. 

Capital Title Co. Inc., 194 F.3d 1089, 1100 (10th Cir. 1999). Robbins v. Wilkie, 2002 C10 944 20 

(USCA10, 2002). 

Whether § 1962(c) should be interpreted to require a substantial effect on interstate commerce is 

an open question in Tenth circuit. However, neither the Supreme Court nor any courts of appeals have held 

that the effect must be substantial, and a number of our sister circuits have held that a de minimis effect on 

interstate commerce is sufficient to satisfy this statutory requirement. See United States v. Shyrock, 342 

F.3d 948, 984 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the district court properly instructed the jury that § 1962(c)'s 

jurisdictional element was satisfied if the jury found "a de minimis affect [sic] on interstate commerce"); 

United States v. Marino, 277 F.3d 11, 35 (1st Cir. 2002) (holding that "the government does not need to 

show that the RICO enterprise's effect on interstate commerce is substantial"); United States v. Riddle, 249 

F.3d 529, 537 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that a "RICO enterprise's necessary relationship to interstate 

commerce" is "de minimis"); United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 674 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that "the 

1 Sections 1962(c) and (d) provide: 

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or 

associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, 

to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern 

of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debts. 

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or 

(c) of this section. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c)-(d). 

4 


government need only prove that the individual subject transaction has a de minimis effect on interstate 

commerce" in order to satisfy § 1962(c)). 

An enterprise "includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 

entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact though not a legal entity." 18 U.S.C. § 

1961(4). Racketeering activity includes, among other things, acts prohibited by any one of a number of 

criminal statutes. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). A "pattern" is demonstrated by two or more instances of 

"racketeering activity" that occur within 10 years of one another. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). In this case, the 

alleged racketeering acts are violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 (mail fraud) and 1343 (wire fraud). 

To demonstrate violations of Section 1962(d), Medical Supply must prove: (1) that two more 

people agreed to violate Section 1962(c), and (2) that the defendant knew of and agreed to the overall goal 

of the violation. United States v. Philip Morris Inc., 130 F.Supp.2d 96 (D.D.C. 2001). 

In the present Motion, Medical Supply seeks partial summary judgment striking certain 

affirmative defenses of Defendants and on particular issues of law relating to proof of liability. Medical 

Supply argues first that, as a matter of law, each Defendant is distinct from the alleged RICO enterprise. 

Second, Medical Supply argues that, as a matter of law, aDefendant's liability for RICO conspiracy under 

Section 1962(d) does not require proof that such Defendant participated in the operation or management of 

the alleged enterprise. Finally, Medical Supply argues that, as a matter of law, liability for committing a 

racketeering act under Section 1962(c) extends to those Defendants who aided and abetted the commission 

of that act. 

A. EACH DEFENDANT IS DISTINCT FROM THE ALLEGED RICO ENTERPRISE 

Medical Supply seeks partial summary judgment that each Defendant is distinct from the RICO 

enterprise. 2 To establish an enterprise under Section 1962(c), a plaintiff must allege and prove the existence 

of two distinct entities: (1) a 'person' and (2) an 'enterprise' that is not simply the same 'person' referred to 

by a different name. Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S.158, 161 (2001). In King, the 

Court concluded that a RICO defendant, or 'person', must be distinct from the RICO 'enterprise' that the 

defendant is associated with or employed by. Id. at 161-62. 

2 Medical Supply seeks summary judgment not on some abstract issue, as Defendants argue, but rather on 

its request to strike the affirmative defenses denying distinctness. Thus, the Court's conclusion on the 

distinctness element and is proper under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. 

5 


Regardless of how the enterprise is defined (if at all), Medical Supply has proven the distinctness 

element in this case. Courts have already held that an "association-in-fact" enterprise can be a group of 

corporations. See Philip Morris, 116 F.Supp.2d at 152-53. Moreover, there is no dispute that each 

individual Defendant is a separate legal entity or an individual with the capacity of being a RICO person. 

Thus, if this Court should find an enterprise comprised of at least two of the Defendants, the Defendants 

will be distinct from the enterprise itself. Of course, Medical Supply must also prove, as it acknowledges, 

the requirements of the alleged enterprise –- common purpose, organization, and continuity –- in order to 

prevail on its RICO claims. United States v. Perholtz, 842 F.2d 343, 362 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). However, there 

is no reason to postpone a definitive determination on distinctness. 

Accordingly, Medical Supply's Motion for partial summary judgment removing potential 

affirmative defenses of failure to identify a RICO enterprise separate and distinct from the Defendants 

themselves should be granted. 

B. A DEFENDANT'S LIABILITY FOR CONSPIRACY UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) DOES 

NOT REQUIRE THAT DEFENDANT TO PARTICIPATION THE OPERATION OR 

MANAGEMENT OF THE ENTERPRISE 

In Salinas, the Supreme Court held that liability under Section 1962(c) is not a prerequisite to 

finding liability under Section 1962(d). See Salinas, 522 U.S. at 66. In that case, the defendant was 

charged with criminal violations of Sections 1962(c) and (d) but was convicted on the conspiracy charge 

alone. In concluding that a RICO conspiracy defendant need not commit a substantive RICO offense under 

Section 1962(c), the Court explained that "it is sufficient that the [defendant] adopt the goal of furthering or 

facilitating the criminal endeavor." Id. at 65. The Court noted that RICO's conspiracy section is to be 

interpreted in light of the common law of criminal conspiracy. See id. 3 The tenth Circuit stated: 

“Because this conspiracy provision lacks an overt act requirement, a defendant can be convicted 

under § 1962(d) upon proof that the defendant knew about or agreed to facilitate the commission of 

acts sufficient to establish a § 1962(c) violation. See Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63-66 

(1997).” 

United States v. Smith, No. 03-4240 at pg.1 (Fed. 10th Cir. 7/6/2005) (Fed. 10th Cir., 2005). 

3 "If conspirators have a plan which calls for some conspirators to perpetrate a crime and others to provide 

support, the supporters are as guilty as the perpetrators ... so long as they share a common purpose, 

conspirators are liable for the acts of their co-conspirators." Salinas, 522 U.S. at 64. 

6 


Accordingly, one who opts into or participates in a Section 1962(d) conspiracy to violate Section 

1962(c) is liable for the acts of his co-conspirators even if that defendant did not personally agree to 

commit, or to conspire with respect to, any particular one of those acts. Id. 

This liability for the “passive conspirator” exists notwithstanding Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 

U.S. 170, 185 (1993). Some defendants claim that the law requires a showing of "operation or management 

of the enterprise" to demonstrate a RICO conspiracy under Section 1962(d).Even though the Supreme 

Court did hold in Reves that, to "conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such 

enterprise's affairs, one must participate in the operation or management of the enterprise itself," the 

passive conspirator immunity argument fails for the following reasons. 

First, Reves involved a Section 1962(c) substantive RICO offense not a Section 1962(d) RICO 

conspiracy offense. In Reves, the Supreme Court held that an accounting firm could not be liable 

under Section 1962(c) for incorrectly valuing a farm cooperative's assets listed on its financial statements. 

Reves, 507 U.S. at 179. The Court reasoned that the firm had not "conduct[ed] or participated ... in the 

conduct" of the enterprise's affairs because it did not participate in the "operation or management of the 

enterprise itself." Id. 

All circuits but the Ninth have concluded that Reves addressed only the extent of conduct or 

participation necessary to violate Section 1962(c), and did not address the principles of conspiracy law 

under Section 1962(d). 4 See Smith v. Berg, 247 F.3d 532 (3d Cir. 2001); United States v. Posada-Rios, 158 

F.3d 832, 857 (5 th Cir. 1998); Napoli v. United States, 45 F.3d 680, 683-84 (2d Cir. 1995); MCM Partners, 

Inc. v. Andrews-Bartlett & Assoc., 62 F.3d 967, 979 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Starrett, 55 F.3d 1525, 

1547 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Quintanilla, 2 F.3d 1469, 1485 (7th Cir. 1993) ("to hold that under 

section 1962(d) the government must show that an alleged coconspirator ... participated to the extent 

required in Reves would add an element to RICO conspiracy that Congress did not direct"). The tenth 

Circuit stated: 

4 As noted, only the Ninth Circuit has ruled that Reves' on or management" test applies to RICO 

conspiracy charges. See Neibel v. Trans World Assurance Co., 108 F.3d 1123, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 1997). 

However, Neibel was decided before Salinas, and the Ninth Circuit has not yet revisited its ruling. 

Moreover, Neibel relied upon United States v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568, 581 (3d Cir. 1995), another pre-Salinas 

decision, which the Third Circuit subsequently ruled was no longer good Smith v. Berg, 247 F.3d at 534. 

7 


"[T]he word 'participate' makes clear that RICO liability is not limited to those with primary 

responsibility for the enterprise's affairs, just as the phrase 'directly or indirectly' makes clear that 

RICO liability is not limited to those with a formal position in the enterprise, but some part in 

directing the enterprise's affairs is required." Reves II, 507 U.S. at 179, 113 S.Ct. at 1170 (footnote 

omitted). Id. (footnote omitted). Outsiders, such as the Title Companies, who are associated with a 

RICO enterprise and participate in the operation or management of the enterprise may also be liable 

under 1962(c). Reves II, 507 U.S. at 185, 113 S. Ct. at 1173.” 

BancOklahoma Mortgage Corp. v. Capital Title Co. Inc., 194 F.3d 1089, 1100 (10th Cir. 1999). 

Thus, Reves' "operation or management" standard applies only to substantive RICO offenses under Section 

1962(c) and not to a conspiracy to violate RICO under Section 1962(d). 

Second, after Reves, the Supreme Court specifically set forth in Salinas the standard for liability 

under Section 1962(d). See Salinas, 522 U.S. at 65. Such conspiracy liability requires a showing that: (1) 

two or more people agreed to commit a substantive RICO offense, and (2) the defendant knew of and 

agreed to the overall objective of the violation. Id.; See Posada-Rios, 158 F.3d at 857 (citing Salinas); 

Brouwer v. Raffensperger, Hughes & Co., 199 F.3d 961, 967 (7th Cir. 2000) (same). There can be no 

question that the Supreme Court was aware of its decision in Reves when it decided Salinas, and there is 

nothing inconsistent between the two decisions. 

Thus, reading Reves and Salinas together, it is clear that a defendant may be held liable for 

conspiracy to violate Section1962(c) if it knowingly agrees to violate the elements of Section 

1962(c), one of which is the "operation or management" of a RICO enterprise. 5 

However, liability for a 

RICO conspiracy under Section 1962(d) does not require the same proof of participation in the "operation 

or management" of the alleged RICO enterprise, just as it does not require proof of commission of all the 

5 Relying upon Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (2000), Defendants could assert that Salinas is irrelevant for 

the purpose of civil RICO claims. Beck involved a chief executive officer whose employment was 

terminated when he discovered that certain of his company's officers were engaged in racketeering. The 

Court ruled that the termination, allegedly in furtherance of a RICO conspiracy, was not independently 

wrongful under any substantive RICO provision and did not give rise to a cause of action under Section 

1962(c). In Beck, the only mention of Salinas appears in a footnote: 

"[w]e have turned to the common law of criminal conspiracy to define what constitutes a violation of § 

1962(d), .... This case,however, does not present simply the question of what constitutes a violation of § 

1962(d), but rather the meaning of a civil cause of action for private injury by reason of such a violation." 

Beck, 529 U.S. at 501 n.6. However, this sentence does not in any way repudiate or undercut the Salinas 

holding. The Beck decision turns rather on the injury requirement of Section 1964(c). Id. Thus, violations 

of Section 1962(d) continue to be defined under and governed by Salinas. 

8 


other elements of the Section 1962(c) substantive offense. Salinas, 522 U.S. at 65; see also Smith, 247 F.3d 

at 537. 

Accordingly, Medical Supply's Motion for partial summary judgment that a Defendant's liability 

for RICO conspiracy does not require that Defendant to participate in the operation or management of the 

enterprise should be granted. 

C. WHETHER LIABILITY FOR A PARTICULAR RACKETEERING ACT EXTENDS TO 

AIDERS AND ABETTORS MUST BE DETERMINED AT TRIAL 

To establish a "pattern of racketeering activity" for purposes of Section 1962(c), Medical Supply 

must show that each Defendant committed at lease two acts of racketeering, "the last of which occurred 

within ten years ... after the commission of a prior racketeering act." 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). Medical Supply 

argues that a defendant's liability for a particular racketeering act may be established by proof that the 

Defendant aided and abetted the commission of that racketeering act. Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 

9 (1954) (a person who aids and abets another in the commission of mail fraud, a violation of § 1341, also 

violates §1341); United States v. Shifman, 124 F.3d 31, 36 (1st Cir. 1997). 

Aiding and abetting is no longer applicable to securities fraud under RICO after Central Bank of 

Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994). In Central Bank, the Supreme 

Court held that there can be no private civil liability for aiding and abetting securities fraud under Section 

10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Central Bank, 511 U.S. at 185. 

After 

examining the language and structure of the Act, the Court concluded that "the text of the 1934 Act does 

not itself reach those who aid and abet a Section 10(b) violation." Id. At 183. 

However, the plaintiff does not raise securities law based claims. It is clear from the averments in 

the complaint that Neoforma, Inc. (NEOF) and Robert Zollars are subject to civil liability under the 

securities laws to shareholders. Neoforma, Inc. (NEOF) and Robert Zollars have previously defended 

against shareholder liability lawsuits without disclosing that Neoforma, Inc.’s technology and market 

potential described in its prospectuses and quarterly reports was compromised against the interests of the 

company’s shareholders in agreements to enforce the artificially inflated prices of the established “bricks 

and mortar” distributors UHC, VHA and Novation, LLC. 

9 


An argument can be made that Central Bank eliminates aiding and abetting in non securities fraud 

based RICO claims. See the discussion of American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Dealerships Relations 

Litigation. 958 F.Supp. 1045 (D. Md. 1997) under Law firm RICO liability infra. However in the Tenth 

Circuit this issue does not yet appear to be resolved against civil aiding and abetting liability and RICO 

aiding and abetting is still liberally applied in criminal cases. 

The Tenth Circuit has clearly set out the elements of aiding and abetting: 

“The elements of aiding and abetting are also well-settled. Jones, 44 F.3d at 869.[ United States v. 

Jones, 44 F.3d 860, 869 (10th Cir. 1995).] Under 18 U.S.C. § 2, the Government must prove beyond 

a reasonable doubt the defendant: (1) "willfully associate[d] with the criminal venture," and (2) 

"aid[ed] such venture through affirmative action." Jones, 44 F.3d at 869. Mere presence at a crime 

scene is insufficient to prove aiding and abetting. See id. Although knowledge a crime is being 

committed is relevant, some showing of intent to further the criminal venture must be introduced at 

trial. See id.” 

United States v. Delgado-Uribe, No. 03-8003 (10th Cir. 4/13/2004) (10th Cir., 2004). The Tenth 

Circuit still applies the shared intent standard for aiding and abetting in criminal acts: 

“This Court has held that, in order to be convicted of aiding and abetting, a defendant must "share[] 

in the intent to commit the [underlying] offense." U.S. v. Thurmond, 7 F.3d 947, 950 (10th Cir. 

1993)...We agree with the First Circuit and therefore conclude that Mr. Vallejos possessed the intent 

necessary to be found guilty of aiding and abetting a carjacking if he "shared some knowledge" of 

Mr. Sanchez's intent to commit the carjacking.” 

United States v. Vallejos, No. 04-2216 (Fed. 10th Cir. 8/19/2005) (Fed. 10th Cir., 2005). The 

Tenth Circuit’s most extensive defining of the elements required for aiding and abetting liability is 

contained in USA v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir., 2000) 

"Whoever ... aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures [the] commission [of a crime] is 

punishable as a principal." 18 U.S.C. 2(a). "To be guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of a 

crime, the defendant must willfully associate himself with the criminal venture and seek to make the 

venture succeed through some action of his own." United States v. Anderson, 189 F.3d 1201, 1207 

(10th Cir. 1999). United States v. Smith, 133 F.3d 737, 742 (10th Cir. 1997) ("To be liable as an 

aider and abettor under 18 U.S.C. 2, the evidence must establish a defendant associated himself with 

a criminal venture; participated in the venture as something he wished to bring about; sought by his 

actions to make the venture succeed; and the evidence must establish both the commission of the 

offense by someone and the aiding and abetting by the defendant."), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 920 

(1998). Thus, the crime of aiding and abetting is a specific intent crime because it requires the 

defendant to act willfully by participating in the venture and also requires the defendant to have the 

specific intent to make the venture succeed through his or her acts.” 

USA v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269 at 1292 (10th Cir., 2000). The Jackson court also discussed the 

participation requirement for furthering the RICO enterprise: 

"[A]cts committed in furtherance of the commission of a crime by another constitute 'abetting.'" 

Slater, 971 F.2d at 632 (citation omitted). "Participation in the criminal venture may be established 

10 


y circumstantial evidence and the level of participation may be of 'relatively slight moment.'" 

United States v. Leos-Quijada, 107 F.3d 786, 794 (10th Cir. 1997). 

In Slater, we rejected the same argument raised by Mr. Jackson and pointed out one 

"may 'abet' the crime of possession with intent to distribute by procuring the customers and 

maintaining the market in which the possession is profitable, even though you do nothing else to 

help the possessor get or retain possession. Middlemen aid and abet the offense of possession with 

intent to distribute." 

971 F.2d at 632 (quoting with approval United States v. Wesson, 889 F.2d 134, 135 (7th Cir. 

1989)). Furthermore, if we were to hold one cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting the 

possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute without proving possession, this 

would be tantamount to holding one cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting without committing 

the principal offense. Such a result would dismantle the crime of aiding and abetting. Id. at 632-33. 

While the government must show that a defendant engaged in two or more predicate acts to 

state a claim under one of RICO's substantive provisions (Section 1962(a), (b), or (c)), Salinas 

rejected such a requirement with respect to RICO's conspiracy provision (Section 1962(d)), Philip 

Morris, 130 F.Supp.2d at 99, although it did not specifically address the role of the Reves' 

"operation or management" test in assessing liability under Section 1962(d).” 

USA v. Jackson, 213 F.3d 1269 at 1299 (10th Cir., 2000). 

Accordingly, RICO aiding and abetting liability is appropriately defined and does not have to be 

determined at trial. Medical Supply's Motion for partial summary judgment that a Defendant's liability for 

RICO aiding and abetting liability does not have to be determined at trial. 

D. WHETHER A LAW FIRM IS IMMUNE FROM CIVIL RICO CLAIMS. 

The defendants have argued that the defendant Shughart Thomson and Kilroy is immune from 

liability as a RICO defendant. While no law supporting this assertion has been advanced, it would appear 

from the renewed motions to dismiss and motions to sanction Medical Supply and its attorney that law firm 

RICO liability is an issue to be resolved in this action. 

Medical Supply researched its claims before filing its complaint in the Western District of 

Missouri and found that the Eight Circuit had resolved the issue of whether an inherent civil immunity to 

private RICO liability existed for law firms. There is no immunity and a law firm is properly a RICO 

defendant. 

1. Claims against Law Firms under Section 1962(c) and (d) 

The law firm sued for RICO violations in Handeen v. Lemaire 12 F.3d 1339 (8th Cir. 1997) 

represented a client who had been convicted of aggravated assault. The victim of the aggravated assault 

had obtained a civil judgment against the client. The attorneys counseled the client and his family to avoid 

liability on the judgment by filing bankruptcy and then inflating his debts and concealing earnings. The 

victim sued the family and the law firm under RICO, alleging that they had violated section 1962(c) by 

11 


conducting the affairs of the bankruptcy estate (the enterprise) through a pattern of racketeering activity. 

The district court dismissed the RICO claims (as well as related state law causes of action). The Eighth 

Circuit reversed. 

The Handeen court conceded that after Reves, RICO liability did not attach to those who 

furnished a client (even one engaged in a RICO enterprise) "with ordinary professional assistance" and 

that "RICO is not a surrogate for professional malpractice actions." Id. at 1348. Nevertheless, the court 

found that Reves did not insulate the law firm from liability fro RICO where the firm, in representing its 

clients in a bankruptcy proceeding, allegedly directed the clients to create false promissory notes and other 

sham debts to dilute the estate; defended the family's fraudulent claims against objections; prepared filing 

and schedules with the court which contained erroneous information; formulated and promoted fraudulent 

repayment plans; participated in a scheme to conceal the client's new job (and increased earnings); and 

otherwise controlled the bankruptcy estate to permit the client to avoid the judgment against him. Id. at 

1350. 

“T]his would not be a case where a lawyer merely extended advice on possible ways to manage an 

enterprise's affairs . . . Instead, if the Firm truly did associate with the enterprise to the degree 

encompassed by the Complaint, we would not hesitate to hold that the attorneys "participated in 

the core activities that constituted the affairs of the [estate]. . ." 

Id. A multidistrict proceeding arose as a result of allegations that high level executives of 

American Honda received kickbacks from various dealers in exchange for favors, primarily increased 

allocates of automobiles or the award of new dealerships, in American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 

Dealerships Relations Litigation. 958 F.Supp. 1045 (D. Md. 1997). The claims were not dissimilar to 

Medical Supply’s claims against the defendants for monopolizing hospital supplies through kickbacks from 

manufacturers and bribes paid to hospital administrators. Included among the defendants was the law 

firm of yon & Lyon, which was accused of participating in the concealment of the illegal scheme. The 

plaintiffs asserted RICO violations under section 1962(c) based on acts of alleged mail fraud arising from 

the mailing of false statements that American Honda would deal with the plaintiffs fairly and distribute 

Honda products to them in a fair and reasonable manner. 

The plaintiffs alleged that Lyon & Lyon was not only American Honda's general counsel but also 

had attorneys serving as voting directors of the company. Lyon & Lyon conducted training sessions at 

sales meetings and handled allegations of misconduct, including conflict of interest complaints involving 

12 


dealers or potential dealers. The plaintiffs alleged that after Lyon & Lyon received dealer complaints 

about the kickback scheme, it took action s to conceal the scheme, amounting to obstruction of justice. 

Lyon & Lyon attorneys allegedly counseled witnesses to give evasive or incomplete testimony and 

intentionally limited an investigation of the kickback allegations by not interviewing key witnesses. Lyon 

& Lyon attorneys also allegedly directed American Honda to make false and misleading assertions about 

the results of its investigation in a hearing. Id. at 1056-57. 

Lyon & Lyon's motion to dismiss the section 1962(c) claim against it was denied. In denying 

the motion, the American Honda court initially found that Lyon & Lyon had a sufficient role in the 

enterprise's activities to satisfy the Reves "operation or control" test: 

[F]or over ten years Lyon & Lyon took on the responsibility of pretending to enforce American 

Honda's conflict of interest policy and of not following up on dealer complaints in order to 

perpetuate the kickback scheme. Concealment is a necessary element of any ongoing illegal 

activity, and a person who is in charge of the coverup plays an operational and management role in 

the enterprise conducting that activity. 

Id. at 1057. However, the American Honda court did not feel that Lyon & Lyon's participation in 

the management of the racketeering enterprise was in and of itself sufficient to impose RICO liability on 

the law firm. It is not enough, however, for a defendant to have 'conduct[ed] or participate[d] directly or 

indirectly, in the conduct of [an] enterprise's affairs' in order for him to be held liable under § 1962(c). He 

also must have done so 'through a pattern of racketeering activity.'" Id. The American Honda court noted 

that the predicate acts of racketeering charged by the plaintiffs were acts of mail fraud, and that Lyon & 

Lyon did not mail any of the fraudulent materials involved. Id. Moreover, the court did not dispute the 

"conventional wisdom that feels that aiding and abetting liability under § 1962(c) does not survive the 

Supreme Court's ruling in Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver..." Id. at 1057-58. 

Nevertheless, the American Honda court concluded that "[t]his does not mean, however, that 

aiding and abetting principles do not apply in considering whether a defendant has participated in the 

enterprise 'through a pattern of racketeering activity,' i.e., whether he has committed at least two predicate 

acts." Id. at 1058. 

Rather, where a person involved in the management or control of a racketeering 

enterprise aids and abets in the commission of predicate acts, the person faces liability under § 1962(c), 

because a distinction must be made between aiding and abetting a violation of section 1962(c) (an offense 

13 


which does not survive the holding of Reves and Central Bank of Denver) and aiding and abetting in the 

commission of a substantive offense constituting a predicate act. 

“Unless the distinction is recognized, in most cases there would be no principled basis for 

imposing § 1962(c) liability upon a class of defendants whom Congress surely intended should be 

within the statute's purview: leaders of enterprises who do not themselves commit predicate acts 

but who cause others to do so. Id. 

. . 

Although Lyon & Lyon may only have aided and abetted the commission of the predicate acts of 

mail fraud, as indicated above its management role in concealing the scheme is sufficient to meet 

the "operation and management" test of Reves. Plaintiffs have therefore stated a viable § 1962(c) 

claim against Lyons & Lyons.” 

American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Dealerships Relations Litigation. 958 F.Supp. 1045 at 1059 (D. 

Md. 1997). American Honda thus suggests that the concealment of a pattern of racketeering by one who 

also exercises some element of control over the racketeering enterprise is sufficient to impose section 

1962(c) liability. 

2. Conspiracy Claims against Law Firms under Section 1962(c) and (d) 

Where a plaintiff is able to establish that the professional conspired by agreeing to commit at least 

two predicate cats of racketeering in violation of section 1962(d), the plaintiff may be able to state a RICO 

violation even without satisfying the "operation or management" standard enunciated in Reves as required 

for a claim under section 1962(c). Medical Supply’s complaint avers Shughart Thomson & Kilroy’s control 

over the RICO acts designed to protect and conceal the enterprise’s ongoing scheme to artificially inflate 

prices of hospital supplies in the national market in furtherance of the defendants’ scheme to overcharge 

Medicare, Medicaid and Champus. 

Obviously, to the extent that Medical Supply’s artful pleading avoids dismissal of a section 

1962(d) conspiracy claim against an outside professional firm who cannot be held liable under section 

1962(c) because he or she has no voice in directing the affairs of the enterprise, the protections of Reves 

may be severely curtailed. 

"[C]ourts risk eviscerating Reves by blanketly approving conspiracy convictions when 

substantive convictions under section 1962(c) are unavailable . . . As one commentator has 

explained, '[i]f Congress' restriction of section 1962(c) liability to those who operate or manage the 

enterprise can be avoided simply by alleging that a defendant aided and abetted or conspired with 

someone who operated or managed the enterprise, Reves would be rendered almost nugatory.'" 

United States v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568, 580-82 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Smith and Reed, Civil RICO, § 

504 at 5-39 (1994)).However, the extent of Medical Supply’s allegations against Shughart Thomson and 

14 


Kilroy reveal the law firm was the primary agency in securing the objectives of the unlawful enterprise in 

artificially inflating hospital supply prices for another three years. The complaint alleges the law firm 

conspired with other defendants in the cartel and was the architect of the racketeering campaign against 

Medical Supply’s legal representation outside of court and also the extra legal influence over the Kansas 

District Court and the Tenth Circuit. 

3.The Parallel to Shook Hardy & Bacon’s Tobacco RICO Conduct 

Medical Supply’s allegations against Shughart Thomson & Kilroy closely parallel the nature of 

unlawful racketeering acts committed by Shook Hardy and Bacon LLP and described by US Department of 

Justice. U.S. Justice Department attorneys alleged lawyers from Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP acted with 

"fraudulent intent" in past efforts to protect cigarette manufacturers from lawsuits. Post-trial documents 

filed Aug. 15 and Aug. 24 in a civil racketeering case against tobacco companies mention at least 15 Shook 

Hardy lawyers by name and refer to the firm more than 250 times. 

A September 2, 2005 Kansas City Business Journal print edition article quoted the Notre Dame 

Law School professor G. Robert Blakey who stated the government's many mentions of the lawyers in the 

case are "an indication they could have sued them," "Lawyers should not be above the law, but in practice 

they are," He said tobacco lawyers were defendants in just two of the 50 states' cases against tobacco 

companies. Professor Blakey said it's routine practice to excuse lawyers from conspiracy suits, in part 

because of the extra cost of litigating against a law firm's defenses. Professor G. Robert Blakey’s comments 

as printed in the Kansas City Business Journal are however critical of the US Department of Justice for not 

including the private law firm or its attorneys as civil defendants, saying: "It's an indefensible practice," 

and "It's indefensible if lawyers could have been sued but they were not." See “U.S. attorneys take some 

shots at Shook Hardy” Mark Kind, Kansas City Business Journal - September 5, 2005 Exb 1. 

Because of the continuing racketeering conduct directed at Medical Supply and its counsel by 

Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, Medical Supply had to name Shughart Thomson & Kilroy as a defendant 

even at the cost of the diversity jurisdiction that would have guaranteed all of its claims are resolved in 

federal court. The racketeering controlled and furthered by Shughart Thomson & Kilroy’s employees, past 

employees and agents has denied Medical Supply access to the US Supreme Court and is in imminent 

danger of depriving Medical Supply of its counsel. 

15 


The US Department of Justice’s Proposed Findings of Fact and and Post Trial Brief reveal that the 

attorneys including those of the law firm Shook Hardy and Bacon, representing the tobacco companies 

expanded litigation fraud to even controlling the nation’s scientific research relating to tobacco for the 

purpose of conducting and furthering the goals of the unlawful enterprise. The US Justice Department’s 

Post Trial Brief summarizes the RICO conduct of the tobacco companies in a way that makes it clear that 

the essential controlling agency and chief instrument of furthering the RICO enterprise were the 

management of the fraud by law firms including Shook Hardy and Bacon. 

“As indicated previously, however, litigation exposure was not the only reason for the 

suppression of scientific information. See Wigand WD, 80:24-81:5. The suppression also acted to 

directly support Defendants’ enterprise by utilizing numerous means of concealing information that 

would have allowed the American public to learn the truth about smoking, both its addictiveness as 

well as its negative health consequences. 

• First, Defendants destroyed documents to prevent them from being released outside 

of the companies. See, e.g., US 21677 (O) (RJR scientists confirm they will remove documents 

from the research and development files if it becomes clear the documents will expose RJR in 

litigation); US 34839 (A) at 3682 (in notes of a BATCo meeting in 1986 it was reported that 

research documents would be destroyed under the guise of “spring cleaning”). 

• Second, Defendants encouraged their employees, particularly scientists, not to create 

documents that contained sensitive information, particularly information related to smoking and 

health and addiction. BATCO and B&W implemented the “mental copy rule” to prevent the 

creation of sensitive documents. The “mental copy” rule asked employees to “imagine that the 

memo, note or letter you are about to write will be seen by the person that you would least like to 

read it.” The employee is then to “send a ‘mental copy’ of your document to a newspaper, one of 

your competitors, a government agency, or potential plaintiff. Now: would you still write the 

memo If so -would you still write it in the same way” US 87012 at 4434 (A). See also, US 87003 

at 1805-1806 (O) (setting forth Philip Morris’s company policy encouraging employees not to 

create sensitive documents because they may one day have to answer for the contents of the 

document “while sitting in a witness chair in a court room in a lawsuit”). 

• Third, Defendants employed lawyers to review and edit scientific documents to 

ensure that no contentious information was included in company files. See, e.g., US FF § III.E, 

5116-5127, 5184-5221. 

• Fourth, Defendants established company policies to ship or secret scientific 

information outside of the United States. For example, Philip Morris established a foreign research 

facility known as INBIFO and established company policies to prevent research documents from 

the foreign research facility from entering or being kept in the United States. Farone WD, 21:16- 

22:9, 147:11-152:15; Farone TT, 10/07/04, 1938:2-1939:16. Similarly in 1994, Tommie Sandefur, 

the CEO and Chairman of B&W ordered that its sister companies around the world stop sending 

research materials to the United States. Read PD, U.S. v. Philip Morris, 05/01/02, 178:5-16, 179:2- 

181:4; (US 47616) (A); Read TT, 3/22/05, 16437:22-16441:12. 

• Fifth, Defendants employed company lawyers as repositories or conduits for 

scientific documents in an attempt to shield documents from production, even though they were not 

truly protected by the attorney-client privilege. One of the most notorious of these arrangements 

involved the shipment of BATCo documents to B&W through outside counsel by the name of 

Robert Maddox. See US FF § III.E(3), 5136-5179.” 

16 


US Department Of Justice Post Trial Brief Exb 3 Page 85-86. The brief is informed of the outside 

professional liability requirement of control or management of the unlawful enterprise and it is clear that 

discovery and trial testimony revealed outside lawyers committed conduct meeting the liability standard: 

”And as the Court is well aware, Defendants utilized their outside lawyers to further the goals of the 

Enterprise, including attorneys such as Janet Brown at Chadbourne & Parke, John Rupp at 

Covington & Burling, Andrew Foyle at Lovells, and others at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Jones Day, 

and other firms.” 

US Department Of Justice Post Trial Brief Exb 3 Page 12. Like Sam Lipari and his counsel Bret 

Landrith ( see affidavit of Sam Lipari Exb. 8), key witnesses were made to fear for their lives in the defense 

firm efforts to obstruct justice: 

“Defendants also seek to have the Court make an affirmative finding that Robert 

McDermott of Jones Day and Lee Stanford of Shook, Hardy and Bacon acted appropriately in their 

conversations with Dr. Huber before his 1997 deposition. JD FF, ch. 3, 547. The Court should 

reject Defendants’ request. Dr. Huber specifically testified that McDermott and Stanford implied to 

Huber that he did not “fully appreciate the full weight of Shook, Hardy & Bacon and Jones Day” 

representatives of the tobacco industry; the calls caused Huber to fear for the safety and financial 

security of his family. Huber PD, Texas v. American Tobacco, 9/20/97, , 101:4-8, 10-21.” 

US Department Of Justice Post Trial Brief Exb 3 FN 22 Page 44. 

Another parallel with the Medical Supply litigation is the role defense law firms directly played in 

cutting Medical Supply’s access to financial inputs in order to starve out the cartel’s opposition and prevent 

the litigation from being funded. A critical role of defense counsel in furthering the unlawful enterprise was 

in cutting off funding to projects that the Tobacco defense perceived as a threat: 

“Defendants’ use of biased research for public relations and litigation purposes is well 

documented in the form of funding for CTR Special Projects, CIAR Applied Studies, and other Defendantfinanced 

research initiatives such as ETS consultants recruited and managed by Covington & Burling and 

Shook, Hardy & Bacon. See US FF §§ I, III.A(1), III.A(2) and III.B. Evidence also unequivocally 

demonstrates Defendants’ successful efforts to terminate funding that they found threatening to the 

Enterprise. For example: 

• When researchers at Microbiological Associates made progress with inhalation research 

funded by CTR, Defendants expressed dire concern. Philip Morris scientist Thomas Osdene wrote: “I am 

forced of the opinion that the program seems to be misdirected since its main mission seems to be to prove 

that smoking causes cancer.” US 24708 at 3038 (O). Defendants discontinued their funding and, before 

publication of results from the work, manipulated the report from the scientists involved and added an 

introduction that omitted the scientists’ conclusion that there was carcinogenic response in animals after 

exposure to cigarette smoke. See US FF § III.B(2)(ii)(bb). 

• Dr. Gary Huber performed research at Harvard University pursuant to a contractual 

agreement with B&W, Liggett, Lorillard, RJR, and Philip Morris, and produced humantype diseases in the 

lungs of animals that inhaled cigarette smoke. After Huber reported to his tobacco company sponsors that 

his research demonstrated a response to inhaled cigarette smoke, including disease mechanisms similar to 

those associated with diseases in humans, Defendants cut off funding to Huber. In a 1980 meeting at a 

Boston hotel, Defendants’ attorneys told Huber that the reason funding for his research had been 

discontinued was because he was “getting too close to some things.” See generally Huber PD, Texas v. 

American Tobacco, 9/20/97; US FF § III.A. As the Court is well aware, Defendants subsequently fought to 

17 


keep the Huber story from the public by first, urging to “keep the faith, to hold the line,” when he was 

subpoenaed for deposition in 1997, and then employing every strategy at their lawyers’ disposal to keep 

the deposition under seal. Seven years after Huber’s deposition, the United States was finally able to obtain 

the transcript, over vigorous opposition by Defendants, by initiating a court action in the Eastern District 

of Texas. In re United States’ Motion to Modify Sealing Orders, 5:03MC-2 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2004).” 

US Department Of Justice Post Trial Brief Exb 3 Page 43-44. 

Conversely, the Department of Justice’s proposed finding of facts illustrate that the law firms 

identified as RICO co-conspirators including Shook Hardy and Bacon directed financing so that projects 

that would further the unlawful enterprise and perpetuate the deception and death causing fraud received 

funds: 

“Attorneys at Jacob, Medinger & Finnegan and Shook, Hardy & Bacon kept the 

Committee of Counsel apprised of the status of CTR Special Projects and also made 

recommendations to Defendants' General Counsel and to each other as to whether projects should be 

conducted through CTR Special Projects. TIMN261386-1387 (US 21288) (A); 1005048374-8374 

(US 35939) (A). See also Lisanti PD, Arch v. American Tobacco, 6/10/97, 80:9-81:19, 82:10-19.” 

US Department Of Justice Proposed Findings of Facts Exb 2 289. Also paralleling medical 

Supply’s experience with Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, the Justice Department described Shook, Hardy & 

Bacon’s advice, guidance and direction to defendant corporate counsel to deliberately commit fraud in 

publicized research and to misrepresent the law: 

“For example, on May 19, 1967, William Shinn of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, sent a letter to 

Alexander Holtzman, Philip Morris General Counsel, regarding CTR Special Projects, outlining a 

proposal to support and publicize research advancing the theory of smoking as beneficial to health 

as a stress reducer, even for "coronary prone" persons; representing that stress (rather than nicotine 

addiction) explains why smoking clinics fail; and proposing to publicize the "image of smoking as 

'right' for many people . . . as a scientifically approved 'diversion' to avoid disease causing stress." 

1005083882-3882 (US 20204) (O). 

US Department Of Justice Proposed Findings of Facts Exb 2 290. Unfortunately, our legal 

system that could not justly resolve the misconduct of tobacco firms for decades is pretty hard wired for 

resolving the intentional false statements given investors in the publicly traded NASDQ stock Neoforma, 

LLC (NEOF) and our legal system will also quickly allow hospitals to recover funds fraudulently placed in 

Novation LLC by VHA and UHC. The outside law firm coordinating the defense ends up approving or 

disproving funding commitments in the same way GE and Jeffrey Immelt were directed by the unlawful 

cartel’s legal defense (including chief counsel for the separate non defendant GE Medical Inc, and the 

Chief Counsel for GHX, LLC ) not to honor GE’s real estate contract with Medical Supply: 

“On June 3, 1986, Patrick Sirridge of Shook, Hardy & Bacon sent a letter to the ollowing 

General Counsel: Alexander Holtzman of Philip Morris; Wayne Juchatz of Reynolds; Josiah Murray 

18 


of Liggett; Ernest Pepples of B&W; Paul Randour of American; and Arthur Stevens of Lorillard, 

recommending approval for additional funding of Henry Rothschild through CTR Special Projects. 

507878840-8840 (US 20802) (A).” 

US Department Of Justice Proposed Findings of Facts Exb 2 292. The Justice Department’s 

brief on page 86 reveals why Medical Supply was required to make Shughart Thomson & Kilroy a 

defendant and why Notre Dame Law School Professor G. Robert Blakey faults the DOJ for not making 

Shook, Hardy and Bacon defendants in the tobacco litigation: 

“Joint Defendants’ Proposed Findings suggest that the United States’ claims of suppression of 

information fail because the evidence adduced at trial represented only disparate actions taken by 

individual Defendants, not concerted actions by the Defendants taken together. See, e.g., JD FF, ch. 8, 

811, 934. First, this assertion is simply wrong. The evidence at trial confirms that many of the actions to 

suppress information were joint efforts by all of the Defendants through the Committee of Counsel, 

through other joint organizations, or through Defendants’ law firms, including Covington & Burling and 

Shook, Hardy & Bacon. Second, Defendants apply a legal standard that does not exist. There is no 

requirement that each and every action taken in furtherance of the enterprise involve more than one 

Defendant. It is sufficient that the acts of suppression and destruction were undertaken in furtherance of 

the goals of the Enterprise (chiefly, denying causation and addiction and seeking protection against legal 

judgments). Contrary to Defendants! contention, no Court has held that a racketeering act must be 

“engaged in jointly by Defendants” to constitute a racketeering act that is actionable under RICO. 

Instead, it has long been the law under RICO that “it is irrelevant that each Defendant participated 

in the enterprise’s affairs through different, even unrelated crimes, so long as [the fact finder] may 

reasonably infer that each crime was intended to further or [was related to] the enterprise’s affairs.” 

United States v. Elliot, 571 F.2d 880, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1978). Moreover, acts taken in furtherance of the 

Enterprise, even before an individual Defendant joined the conspiracy are actionable under Section 

1962(d) if they further the objectives of the Enterprise. Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63-64 

(1997).”[Emphasis added] 

US Department Of Justice Post Trial Brief Exb 3 Page 86. The Justice Department argues that the 

findings of fact force a conclusion that the law firms themselves had the requisite fraudulent intent because 

individuals at these law firms and other entities undertook actions that were intended to protect against 

disclosure of Defendants’ fraudulent scheme and actions to promote its unlawful objectives. This argument 

is equally applicable to Shughart Thomson & Kilroy through their lawyer Andrea DeMarea fraudulently 

making a Kansas Disicplinary complaint against Medical Supply’s counsel Bret Landrith when his former 

managing and employing partner, now Magistrate James P. O’Hara’s sabotage of the African American 

James Bolden’s civil rights case and altered testimony was failing to remove medical Supply’s 

representation. The purpose of the defendant Shughart Thomson & Kilroy’s action was clearly to starve out 

Medical Supply’s counsel by fixing other unrelated cases and to cause his disbarment all in a deliberate 

ongoing scheme to prevent the defendants’ unlawful hospital supply cartel from being exposed and to 

19 


promote the cartel’s continued ability to steal money from Medicare, Medicaid and Champus through false 

claims: 

“Further, there is substantial undisputed evidence in the record that over the years, 

numerous executives and scientists of Defendants participated actively in the oversight and control 

of industry activities that were undertaken in execution of and in furtherance of the fraudulent 

scheme. These include, for example, the Chief Executive Officers of Philip Morris, Reynolds, 

B&W, Lorillard, American, and Liggett who served on the Board of Directors and/or the Executive 

Committee of the Tobacco Institute; the General Counsels of the Cigarette Company Defendants 

who were members of the Committee of Counsel; the Boards of Directors of CTR and CIAR, both 

of which were comprised of employees of Defendants; and the numerous other bodies whose 

structures, functions, and activities are described throughout the United States’ Findings of Fact. 

See, e.g., US FF §§ I.B (CTR) & I.C (Tobacco Institute). 

Similarly, the evidence shows that members of the Enterprise who are not Defendants in 

this case – including law firms such as Shook, Hardy & Bacon and Covington & Burling, and other 

agents of Defendants – also possessed the requisite fraudulent intent. Individuals at these law 

firms and other entities undertook actions that were intended to protect against disclosure of 

Defendants’ fraudulent scheme and actions to promote its unlawful objectives. The evidence 

of this is identified throughout the United States’ Findings.” [Emphasis added] 

US Department Of Justice Post Trial Brief Exb 3 Page 106. 

Accordingly, law firms have no special immunity for acts of fraud and racketeering. This court 

should summarily resolve that Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy has the capacity to be a RICO person. 

CONCLUSION 

Whereas the plaintiff has in its supporting memorandum shown that the controlling authority for our 

jurisdiction defines each defendant under the facts averred in the complaint to be distinct from the RICO 

enterprise, that a defendant's liability for RICO conspiracy does not require that defendant to participate in 

the operation or management of the enterprise, that RICO liability extends to aiders and abettors and that 

the law firm Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, Watkins, Boulware, P.C. (Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy) is 

properly a RICO Defendant, the plaintiff Medical Supply respectfully requests the court grant this partial 

summary judgment. 





2961 SW Central Park, # G33, 


1-785-876-2233 

1-785-267-4084 


20 


Certificate of Service 

I certify that on September 6 th , 2005 I have served the foregoing with the clerk of the court by 

using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: 

Mark A. Olthoff , Jonathan H. Gregor, Logan W. Overman, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. 1700 

Twelve Wyandotte Plaza 120 W 12th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64105-1929 

Andrew M. Demarea, Corporate Woods Suite 1100, Building #32 9225 Indian Creek Parkway Overland 

Park, Kansas 66210 (913) 451-3355 (913) 451-3361 (FAX) 

John K. Power, Esq. Husch & Eppenberger, LLC 1700 One Kansas City Place 1200 Main Street Kansas 

City, MO 64105-2122 ( Also attorney for the General Electric defendants and Jeffrey Immelt.) 

Stephen N. Roberts, Esq. Natausha Wilson, Esq. Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott 34th Floor 50 

California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 

Bruce Blefeld, Esq. Kathleen Bone Spangler, Esq. Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. 2300 First City Tower 1001 

Fannin Houston, TX 77002 

Attorneys for Defendants 



21 



FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 

Medical Supply CHAIN, INC., ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) Case No. 05-0210-CV-W-ODS 

NOVATION, LLC 

) Attorney Lien 

NEOFORMA, INC. ) 







US BANK ) 

JERRY A. GRUNDHOFFER ) 

ANDREW CESERE ) 



SHUGHART THOMSON & KILROY ) 

WATKINS BOULWARE, P.C. ) 

Defendants. ) 

Affidavit of Sam Lipari on The Unsuitability of Transfer 

1. My name is Samuel Lipari, I reside at 297 Bayview in Lee’s Summit Missouri. I am 

the chief executive officer of Medical Supply Chain, Inc., a company I incorporated in 

May of 2000. I chose to bring this new action in Missouri District court because I have a 

responsibility to Medical Supply’s stakeholders and to the shareholders of US Bancorp 

NA, The Piper Jaffray Companies and Neoforma, Inc. to adjudicate these claims in 

accordance with laws of the United States. I brought two earlier and related actions to 

Kansas District court based on the advice of my counsel. I witnessed first hand that no 

decision or outcome in either case including from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals had 

any relationship to the pleadings of my company or applicable law. I make this 

determination based on my considerable personal experience as a clerk and researcher for 

a Missouri legal firm and upon discussions with what I believe are the foremost 

healthcare antitrust authorities in our nation. 

1 

Exb 12 


2. I know first hand the consequences to Medical Supply and the additional liabilities 

US Bancorp NA, The Piper Jaffray Companies and Neoforma, Inc. have incurred as a 

result of the Kansas District court outcomes and the Tenth Circuit delays. I believe 

several of these defendants will no longer be viable after a judgment at law is made on 

their conduct. 

3. I received a confidential decision by Chief Judge Deanell R. Tacha dated March 23, 

2005; a complaint with extensive documented evidence including official court 

transcripts and affidavits I made to the Tenth Circuit about the conduct of the Kansas 

District Court Magistrate James P. O’Hara and the attorneys of the law firm Shughart, 

Thomson & Kilroy described in the lawsuit before this court. Chief Justice Tacha 

determined that the conduct described presented an issue about the bias of the forum 

Medical Supply suffered. Included in the complaint was evidence that the bias reached 

the Office of the Clerk for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the person of Patrick 

Fischer, Chief Clerk. 

4. Early in the Kansas District Court case against the US Bancorp defendants, I 

instructed my counsel to write a letter to the Chief Administrative Judge of the Kansas 

District Court inquiring as to weather the Kansas District court had the resources to 

adjudicate an antitrust matter based on a Sherman Act refusal to deal claim and if we 

should transfer the action to a different forum. The Kansas District Court never had the 

time, resources or manpower to answer my inquiry and it is my belief after observing first 

hand that the Kansas District Court does not have the resources required for me to 

prosecute my claims against these defendants. 

2 


5. Beyond the lack of sufficient resources, I was repeatedly struck by the bias and 

open hostility exhibited by the Kansas District Court and Tenth Circuit personnel against 

the claims of my company and how Kansas government attorneys were enlisted to 

retaliate against my counsel for bringing these actions. I believe this is the bias that Chief 

Judge Deanell R. Tacha described in her decision dated March 23, 2005. I became 

concerned and attended the trial phase of my counsel’s representation of James Bolden, 

an African American small business man who had sought out my counsel when Kansas 

government attorneys had discouraged or intimidated four of his previous attorneys, the 

last of which still has not been found. I assisted in the trial preparation for this case 

believing it would be good practice for Medical Supply’s jury trials. 

6. I have now known James Bolden for some time and believe him to be an 

extraordinarily honest god-fearing man. I also know that his work vehicle was 

firebombed while it was parked next to his home and the Topeka Police Department 

refused to even take a police report and that he feared for his life while his case was being 

litigated in the Kansas District Court. The injuries and threats made against his witnesses 

who I also know and believe are honest made affidavits of the incidents, including the 

opposing city attorney, Sherri Price’s threat to criminally prosecute the Topeka business 

owner Fred Sanders if he testified in federal court on behalf of James Bolden. 

7. The City of Topeka and the Topeka office of the US Attorney threatened and 

intimidated other witnesses I have met because of their testimony in Mr. Landrith’s cases. 

Affidavits of these incidents were filed in the various Kansas District Court cases and the 

response of the Kansas judicial branch was to increase its threats against Mr. Landrith, 

one of which was mailed the afternoon Mr. Landrith had called Mark Hunt a former US 

3 


Army officer and an African American to testify in a Topeka Federal courtroom. Mark 

Hunt was severely retaliated against for that testimony and Melvin Johnson, a retired US 

Postal worker client of Mr. Landrith was also retaliated against by city officials that 

night, leaving him homeless. The Topeka office of Eric Melgran the US Attorney caused 

Melvin Johnson’s key witness, Rosemary Price to be retaliated against for her 

participation in a deposition held in the Topeka federal courthouse a week later. 

8. The Kansas District court repeatedly rebuked Mr. Landrith for documenting the 

obstruction and deliberate interference of justice that seems to be commonplace in the 

Kansas legal culture. Magistrate James P. O’Hara issued a very harsh report against Mr. 

Landrith in the Bolden case that seems to be more about Medical Supply’s case and what 

has happened to Shughart, Thomson and Kilroy. The Kansas Disciplinary Administrator 

Stanton Hazlett used the report to justify his investigation and prosecution of Mr. 

Landrith. 

9. I advised Mr. Landrith to file in Kansas District Court to stop the state disciplinary 

administrator from prosecuting him for representing an African American and his 

American Indian witness. Affidavits in both cases revealed that Kansas state officials 

repeatedly obstructed justice and that the opposing counsel Sherri Price had threatened 

minority business men with criminal prosecution if they testified in Kansas District court 

against the City of Topeka. I knew that since none of this testimony was ever disputed the 

District of Kansas would certainly prevent the state from retaliating against Mr. Landrith 

for his protected speech on behalf of an African American and his American Indian 

witness. Surprisingly, however the District of Kansas judges recused themselves and the 

4 


Tenth Circuit assigned the Chief Judge Dee Benson of the District of Utah who made no 

findings of fact or law and dismissed the case with prejudice. 

10. I attended the pre trial order conference of the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator 

before a three-attorney panel consisting of Sally H. Harris, Michael K. Schmitt and 

presided over by Randall D. Grisell. Stanton Hazlett admitted to the panel that the secret 

probable cause hearing had excluded official court records and evidence including a reply 

brief in the adoption appeal that matched court transcripts refuting each evidentiary point 

raised by the adoption attorney seeking to terminate Mr. Price’s parental rights. Stanton 

Hazlett admitted he had secured the probable cause to prosecute Mr. Landrith by stating 

there was no evidence behind the appeal. 

11. Randall D. Grisell and the panel ruled that Mr. Landrith would not be able to 

present any evidence or witnesses related to the discriminatory prosecution of himself 

while the felony threats to obstruct justice documented in the case and including 

opposing counsel were being ignored. Strangely, the panel also ordered the exclusion of 

any evidence or witnesses supporting the truth of the underlying litigations. Randall D. 

Grisell also ruled that the substantial family interest of Stanton Hazlett in the private 

adoption industry and that the chief complaining witness, Kansas state Judge G. Joeseph 

Pierron, Jr. held a position on the board of directors of a private $40 million dollar 

commercial adoption contractor with the State of Kansas, Kansas Children’s Service 

League, Inc. did not require the dismissal and reinvestigation of the complaint. Judge G. 

Joeseph Pierron, Jr. had refused to disqualify himself when Mr. Price’s appeal raised 

questions about widespread Kansas adoption law violations and the failure of the Kansas 

5 


Social and Rehabilitation Services to ensure compliance with laws designed to prevent 

interstate child trafficking. 

12. A few days after Mr. Landrith asked to call Frank D. Williams as a witness to 

Stanton Hazlett’s pattern and practice of not reading or familiarizing himself with the case 

before seeking to prosecute an individual, Kansas state officials in the judicial branch 

attempted to seize $50,000.00 in Southwestern Bell stock owned by Frank D. Williams 

on a ten year old judgment that had expired without being renewed or served on Mr. 

Williams. I believe this was an effort by state officials in the Kansas legal community to 

retaliate against witnesses and to threaten and harass witnesses with their misconduct. 

Since the Medical Supply complaint addresses misconduct related to influencing the 

Kansas District court, I believe that similar efforts will be made against Medical Supply’s 

witnesses if the case is tried in a Kansas forum. 

13. I witnessed the stress mount on Mr. Landrith leading up to the pretrial conference 

for the ethics prosecution. It was a dark holiday season as he had to spend an enormous 

amount of time preparing evidence for the ethics trial in January. I offered to clerk for Mr. 

Landrith during the trial and sat with him during its entirety at the counsel table. 

14. On January 19 th 2005 Stanton Hazlett sent another disciplinary complaint letter to 

Mr. Landrith. I saw that the ethics trial was not going well for Stanton Hazlett who 

seemed entirely unfamiliar with the evidence and exhibited shock and surprise when the 

testimony of Hazlett’s own witnesses revealed that court records had been withheld from 

Mr. Landrith violating the due process and Sixth Amendment rights of his clients and that 

actions had been taken to deceive the court in the underlying cases. 

6 


15. Even though the bad faith basis for the prosecution had become overwhelmingly 

clear, Stanton Hazlett argued (looking to Andrew DeMarea’s complaint for the 

inspiration that an appeal could be frivolous even though the ruling contradicts both 

statue and controlling case law and in the face of documented trial court misconduct) that 

Mr. Landrith should never have accepted the appeal of the indigent David Price when his 

appointed attorney had withdrawn before the conclusion of the trial court case and the 

trial court had refused to hear any of Mr. Price’s pro se motions or allow him access to 

records required for post trial representation. This struck me as a living nightmare that the 

State of Kansas was so far removed from lawfulness and the constitution that I was 

thankful I don’t live there. 

16. At the conclusion of Mr. Landrith’s ethics trial, Sally H. Harris, Michael K. Schmitt 

and Randall D. Grisell stated that they had found Mr. Landrith guilty of something but 

were not sure yet what it was. Stanton Hazlett then argued that the only possible 

punishment was disbarment. 

17. Following the hearing I observed Magistrate O’Hara lagging behind in an effort to 

communicate with Stanton Hazlet and the three judge panel. Throughout this hearing 

there were several occasions were Stanton Hazlet and the three-judge panel had what 

appeared to be private off the record conversations. 

18. Mr. Landrith asked me to accompany him to a meeting with John Ambrosio, a 

Topeka attorney Stanton Hazlett had directed to investigate the complaint made by 

Andrew DeMarea of Shughart Thomson and Kilroy who was representing counsel for the 

defendant US Bank in the Medical Supply case. Mr. Landrith had told me he had 

7 


answered the complaint and sent additional documents, but John Ambrosio had sent 

several letters threatening disbarment if Mr. Landrith did not attend a meeting. 

19. Bret Landrith also arranged for Mr. Dennis Hawver to accompany us to the meeting 

since Mr. Hawver was investigating filing a legislative claim on behalf of Mr. Landrith 

for the enormous burden the repeated bad faith prosecutions by Stanton Hazlett in 

retaliation for Mr. Landrith’s representing minority Kansans who were injured by state 

officials violating Kansas law. When we got there John Ambrosio’s wife Kathleen 

Ambrosio who Janice King, a voluntary process server for Mr. Landrith told me had been 

assigned by the Kansas Judicial branch to assist a divorce attorney opposing her claims 

for child support in the Tenth Circuit stood around listening to our conversations. Then 

we were taken to John Ambrosio’s office. 

20. John Ambrosio was introduced to me and did not recognize my name even though 

he had insisted Mr. Landrith attend this meeting to be questioned about the Medical 

Supply case. I heard Mr. Landrith call his attention to the fact that he had been threatened 

several times by John Ambrosio if he did not make himself available for questioning 

about the case yet Ambrosio had clearly made no preparations and was unfamiliar with 

the complaint or the documents furnished by Stanton Hazlett. Furthermore Mr. Landrith 

complained that Stanton Hazlett had been prosecuting him for over two years, making it 

impossible to earn a living and that he had been told he would be disbarred on the earlier 

claims. 

21. John Ambrosio insisted I leave and that I not witness the meeting but Mr. Hawver 

could stay. Mr. Landrith declined to be interviewed without my presence and I heard 

John Ambrosio threaten Mr. Landrith again with disbarment stating that if Mr. Landrith 

8 


didn’t cooperate he would respond to Stanton Hazlett stating that everything Andrew 

DeMarea had alleged would be reported as true since Mr. Landrith was unwilling to 

refute it. 

22. At that moment I knew the meeting had been arranged solely to harass Mr. Landrith 

for representing me. Despite being paid by the State of Kansas to do an ethics 

investigation, John Ambrosio had not even bothered to read Andrew DeMarea’s 

complaint. Like Sherri Price, the City of Topeka attorney relaying Magistrate James 

O’Hara’s order, Andrew DeMarea was smart enough to sign his name only to the cover 

page relaying without subjective comment a ruling designed to injure Mr. Landrith for his 

representation, neither alleged any wrongdoing against Mr. Landrith. I could see that 

despite John Ambrosio’s visible intent to severely frighten Mr. Landrith if he did not 

meet without a witness, John Ambrosio had not bothered to review the case. 

23. When the defendants realized they had to answer my action in Missouri, I 

experienced the intensified presence of law enforcement officials. Including uniformed 

and plain-clothes surveillance. I believe two plain clothes officers arranged to meet and 

question me. I was questioned extensively about GPO practices and how I was able to 

finance my litigation. I believe the justification for this investigation was the USA 

PATRIOT Act suspicious activity report filed against my company and me over two 

years ago. 

24. I know the suspicious activity reports were filed because my father has my same 

name and the secret reports disrupted the financial operations of my father’s trucking 

company at the time causing him significant loses in income and stress arising from the 

decreased income and the threats of foreclosure on the home he and my stepmother 

9 


shared. The stress aggravated their physical health and my stepmother died from a stroke 

later that year. 

25. I believe the impetuous for the investigation however was the requests made by the 

defendants to government officials in Missouri starting once the Missouri action was 

filed. I went to the FBI office in Kansas City, Missouri with supporting documentation 

and the information described in the complaint about the defendants actions to retaliate 

against my attorney Mr. Landrith in their plan to impede the administration of justice. 

26. No action was taken on my complaint and the law enforcement officials did not 

start surveillance of my home until the defendants requested it. I believe the surveillance 

was unproductive in that it did not serve the goals of the government officials who had 

attempted to accommodate the defendants. I believe this resulted in my fiancé who I lived 

with for four years and whose daughter we were arraigning for me to adopt as father was 

being targeted. When she was pressured repeatedly to find something unlawful I was 

doing, it led to our relationship being canceled and I lost my home. 

27. I moved in with my father and live in his basement. I believe that this residence and 

my office in it has been searched while we were out, again under the justification of the 

USA PATRIOT Act suspicious activity report filed against my company and me over 

two year ago but for the purpose of finding something that could be used to stop my 

litigation. 

28. I continue to experience Internet research interruption and email delays even though 

I believe the Missouri officials are satisfied as to Medical Supply’s claims and the 

lawfulness of our litigation against the defendants. I am hopeful they will enforce the law 

and protect the witnesses of every party. The events that appeared to have occurred in 

10 


Texas, California and Kansas when persons have challenged the defendants’ monopoly 

make this action’s location in Missouri necessary for all the safety of all involved. 

29. Unfortunately, I am experiencing the fallout from law enforcement officials on the 

Missouri side discovering that Medical Supply’s claims were justified and that nothing 

unlawful is being done in my litigation against the defendants. Kansas state officials in 

the judicial branch, including Stanton Hazlett have contacted persons in the last two 

weeks to relay their intentions to me. This is on its face unlawful because Stanton Hazlett 

is required to keep that information confidential until the complaint is filed. One such 

person who had a conversation with Stanton Hazlett has made it clear that Mr. Landrith 

will be disbarred regardless of the law or evidence in the record. While this threat 

imperils Medical Supply’s chance for justice in this litigation, the threat accompanied 

offers to “save” Medical Supply. This involves replacing Medical Supply’s counsel with 

a Kansas attorney as lead counsel I feel Stanton Hazlett believes he and Magistrate 

O’Hara can control. I was offered the $300,000.00 US Bancorp deprived Medical Supply 

of to capitalize my company’s entry to market if I would agree to this arrangement. While 

this is being suggested to me repeatedly to the point that it is becoming a pressure, the 

suggested attorneys have no antitrust experience or familiarity with the present actions. 

30. I believe Stanton Hazlett and Magistrate O’Hara are acting in the interests of the 

defendant Shughart Thomson & Kilroy to use their control over the enforcement of 

Kansas Attorney Ethics rules to change counsel so that evidence of Shughart Thomson & 

Kilroy’s actions in furtherance of the defendant’s conspiracy will not be subjected to 

discovery, accomplishing the conspiracy’s short term objective of concealing what was 

done to influence the Kansas District Court and the defendant conspiracy’s long term 

11 


objective of eliminating liability for their conduct. Because the conspiracy so overtly 

seeks to control and prevent the presentation of evidence regarding the occurrences in 

Kansas District court and the motivations for what was done to Mr. Landrith while 

suppressing evidence of misconduct including felony obstruction of justice, witness 

intimidation and harassment related to Mr. Bolden and Mr. Price’s entirely unrelated 

cases. 

31. Chief Judge Deanell R. Tacha’s confidential decision clearly casts the Sherman 

Antitrust Act and 18 U.S.C.§ 241 as “frivolous” laws. This also comports with the Tenth 

Circuit’s formal opinions regarding Medical Supply’s antitrust claims. Since my 

company cannot enter the market unless the conspirators exerting monopolistic control 

over the market are enjoined from further planned actions to exclude competition and 

discouraged from the belief that US antitrust law will not be enforced in the ecommerce 

delivery of hospital supplies, I must bring my company’s claims to a jurisdiction that will 

follow US Antitrust law. I believe that excludes the Kansas District court and its 

appellate circuit. 

32. At the time my counsel has twelve days to answer about 20 motions seeking the 

dismissal and transfer of this case, Stanton Hazlett is misleading the Tenth Circuit into 

dismissing the motion to enjoin further disbarment proceedings during the pendancy of 

Mr. Landrith’s civil rights cases (he still has to represent Mr. James Bolden) based on 

Stanton Hazlett’s misrepresentations that the appeal is moot because Mr. Landrith is not 

being disciplined, then, Stanton Hazlett filed a recommendation of disbarment against 

Mr. Landrith in the Kansas Supreme Court on April 14, 2005 without retracting his Tenth 

Circuit Motion to dismiss. 

12 


33. The defendants seek to transfer Medical Supply’s case to Kansas. I have feared for 

my life during parts of this litigation especially after calling the Ft. Worth, TX office of 

the US Attorney to ask to speak to the attorney that issued the criminal subpoenas against 

my cases defendants and being told she was dead and then finding out that the FCA 

attorney had died shortly before her. It is my belief that I would be putting witnesses in 

jeopardy if this action were conducted in Kansas and that would principally be a result of 

the hostility the Kansas District court has for victims of witness intimidation and 

harassment and the obvious willingness of the Kansas judicial branch to assist in the 

harassment and intimidation. Certainly, it would be unlikely that law enforcement 

officials could bring anyone to justice in that environment. 

34. I do believe the State of Missouri will uphold the laws against witness and victim 

harassment and secure the protection of all parties. In Missouri, law enforcement officials 

appear to have already looked into this litigation at the request of the defendants and I 

also have my up most confidence in them 

13 


14 


CITIZEN’S CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 

This complaint is made by Bret Landrith, counsel for Medical Supply Chain, Inc., 

(herein “Medical Supply”), a Missouri Corporation located at 1300 NW Jefferson Court, 

Blue Springs, MO 64015. 

Medical Supply has been the victim of Hobbs Act extortion, obstruction of justice 

and Sherman Act §§1 and 2. Medical Supply was the last ecommerce hospital supply 

marketplace not controlled or acquired by Novation, LLC or Premier Purchasing 

Partners. Medical Supply attempted to enjoin the actions being taken against it with two 

civil law suits filed in Kansas District Court. Unfortunately, Medical Supply continued to 

suffer extortion, and its counsel was subjected to intimidation and harassment. Both cases 

were compromised by the defendants corrupt influence over forum. 

This complaint outlines the conduct committed against Medical Supply during the 

prosecution of the case. Outside of corruptly influencing the court, US Bancorp NA filed 

a malicious suspicious activity report under the USA PATRIOT Act to prevent Medical 

Supply from having access to banking services and effectively kept it from entering the 

market for hospital supplies. 

Two US Attorneys that appeared connected to the criminal investigation of 

Novation, LLC have died and three more in the Ft Worth office of the US Department of 

Justice with antitrust expertise have been dismissed. Medical Supply does not believe 

there is currently an active criminal investigation of the supplier side of hospital 

Medicare false claims. 

1 

Exb 13 


The Hon. Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara engaged in conduct prejudicial to the 

effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. The complainant 

believes that Judge James P. O’Hara used his magistrate’s office to obtain special 

treatment for his former law firm Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy and improperly engaged 

in discussions with lawyers or parties to cases in the absence of representatives of 

opposing parties, and other abuses of judicial office. 

TENTH CIRCUIT CASES EFFECTED 

Medical Supply Chain v US Bancorp, NA.; Case No. 02-3443, 03-3342 

Medical Supply Chain v General Electric Co.; Case No. 04-3075, 04-3102 

Bolden v City of Topeka; Case No. 04-3306 


1. The. Hon. Judge James P. O’Hara is a magistrate in the District of Kansas with an 

office in Kansas City, Kansas federal courthouse. 

2. Before becoming a magistrate, Judge O’Hara was the managing partner and 

shareholder in the law firm Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy where he worked for 18 years 

and managed the firm’s Overland Park, Kansas office. The firm’s website continues to 

list him in a biographical press release giving the impression they have significant 

influence in the Kansas District Court. Atch. 1 

3. The Kansas District Court biography of Judge O’Hara states that he started in the legal 

profession as a law clerk for the Kansas Attorney Disciplinary Administrator’s office and 

2 


states that he has served on several Kansas attorney disciplinary committees while 

working for Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy. 

4. The complainant, Bret D. Landrith, Esq. undertook the representation of Medical 

Supply Chain, Inc. in an action against U.S. Bancorp NA, several of its subsidiaries and 

officers, an independent legal identity named as Unknown Healthcare Supplier and 

several identified coconspirators which were not to be named as defendants until 

discovery. The complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief for Sherman §§ 1and 2 

antitrust violations and pendant state claims related to the theft of intellectual property 

and contract. 

5. The firm Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy (STK) represented all the defendants except the 

Unknown Healthcare Supplier and the defense was argued by STK’s Overland Park 

office attorney Andrew M. DeMarea at two preliminary injunctive relief hearings. 

6. DeMarea did not appear familiar with the subject matter of the case, believing it to be 

about health insurance instead of hospital supplies and did not refute that he had not read 

the motions from the case in the second hearing: 

“The transcripts added to the record confirm that US Bancorp’s counsel was 

unfamiliar with the motions and pleadings that were the subject of the two 

hearings. US Bancorp’s counsel stated repeatedly and erroneously the issues were 

health insurance and pricing and appeared at all times to be very far a field from 

the subject matter of the case.” 

Medical Supply Reply Brief, pg. 2, Case No. 02-3443. 

7. The case is of great importance to the 1.8 trillion dollar hospital supply industry where 

Medical Supply was the last remaining independent electronic marketplace for hospital 

supplies in a national market controlled by a hospital supply group purchasing monopoly 

that has been the subject of three US Senate Judiciary Antitrust Sub Committee hearings. 

The second of which discussed the conduct committed against Medical Supply by US 

3 


Bancorp and its investment bank subsidiary and also described the later conduct 

committed against Medical Supply by General Electric. Atch. 2 

8. The denial of preliminary injunctive relief resulted in Medical Supply seeking an 

interlocutory appeal, which surprised both the presiding judge, Hon. Carlos Murguia and 

visibly angered Andrew M. DeMarea even though this outcome was extensively briefed 

in the motion being heard. 

9. The denial of temporary relief caused Medical Supply to lose the $350,000.00 it had 

raised from its representative candidates to enter the market for hospital supplies. 

Medical Supply also lost its intellectual property including its proprietary trade secrets, 

business models and algorithms. Some of the intellectual property was later incorporated 

into the US Bancorp’s hospital supplier co-conspirator’s business practices. 

10. A series of state disciplinary actions started to be taken against Medical Supply’s 

counsel, who had attempted to earn a living as a solo civil rights practioner while 

awaiting the Tenth Circuit’s ruling on the Medical Supply case. 

11. Hon. Judge James P. O’Hara had knowledge of the first two disciplinary complaints 

made against Bret Landrith for representing an African American James Bolden and his 

chief witness, David Price in separate Kansas Court of Appeals case. The complaints 

were not made by the clients but instead by a motions attorney for the state court and in 

later testimony it was discovered that it was the conduct accurately describing denial of 

equal protection and due process rights suffered by the clients in bringing the appeal that 

prompted the complaint. Atch. 3. 

12. With knowledge of the discriminatory treatment depriving James Bolden of access to 

Shawnee District Court records and an opportunity to litigate his appeal, Hon. Judge 

4 


James P. O’Hara at a pre trial order conference in the concurrent federal civil rights 

action attacked Bret Landrith as incompetent, inviting James Bolden to sue his counsel 

for malpractice and suggesting that Bolden could better represent himself pro se. Atch. 4. 

13. Judge O’Hara reiterated these same statements in his report and recommendation to 

the presiding judge, which he directed to be mailed in certified delivery to James Bolden. 

Atch. 5. 

14. The basis for these attacks on Bret Landrith turned out to be pretextual. Controlling 

law clearly makes the City responsible for the conduct of its officers in their official 

capacity. A fact Judge O’Hara well knew and in an unrelated pretrial order conference 

the following day accepted the voluntary stipulation of parties that all officials be 

voluntarily dismissed. Judge O’Hara also stated as much in a footnote to his report. Atch. 

5. 

15. The reason for Judge O’Hara’s targeting of Bret Landrith appears to be in retaliation 

for his representation of Medical Supply where SKT’s failure to appreciate the extreme 

risk to their clients resulted in a litigation record that clearly made SKT the guarantor of 

any damages that might be awarded against US Bancorp. This is consistent with his sua 

sponte pretrial order statements about malpractice insurance when it was clear that even 

if Bolden was deprived of individual defendants, the City was the party financially liable. 

Piper Jaffray conducted a study showing a web based electronic marketplace like Medical 

Supply would save over $20 billion dollars in hospital supply costs. 

16. Sherri Price the counsel for the City of Topeka who relied entirely on Magistrate 

O’Hara to represent her clients during the pretrial order conference filed an ethics 

“complaint” against Bret Landrith. The “complaint” stated that Mr. Landrith had included 

5 


the earlier ethics complaint as an attachment to Bolden’s pleadings which is not a 

violation of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and Sherri Price incorporated by 

reference Magistrate O’Hara’s Report and Recommendation, making no observations of 

assertions of Mr. Landrith’s misconduct of her own. Atch. 6. 

16. Andrew DeMarea failed to file a reply brief in the interlocutory appeal for the US 

Bancorp appellees. The Tenth Circuit court clerk called him two days later to remind him 

and urged him to file for an extension one day beyond the date the brief was due and 

seven days beyond the deadline for a motion for extension of time under 10th Cir. R. 

27.4(F). Atch. 7. 

17. Andrew DeMarea refused to turn in a parties case management conference report on 

the form required by local rule in the Kansas District Court. He repeatedly assured 

Magistrate Waxe during the first case management conference that the Medical Supply 

case would be dismissed. 

18. Mark Olthoff, an attorney for SKT in their Kansas City, MO office appeared to write 

all pleadings and briefs for the defendants until the second appeal where he appears to 

have been replaced by Susan C. Hascall of the Kansas City, MO office who was a Tenth 

Circuit Court of Appeals law clerk through 2000. 

19. Mark Olthoff’s trial pleadings repeatedly misstated and misrepresented Medical 

Supply’s Amended Complaint and pleadings to the court, even after it had been 

repeatedly drawn to the court’s attention that Mr. Olthoff was exploiting the court’s 

reliance on the experience of SKT and was neglecting to read or consider Medical 

Supply’s pleadings. In its order, the court even admonished Bret Landrith for failing to 

research law and facts that the record evidences had been researched. The negligence was 

6 


entirely that of Mr. Olthoff and the court’s or a result of the court’s misplaced reliance on 

Mr. Olthoff. 

20. The Medical Supply action against US Bancorp was dismissed but not on arguments 

or authorities presented by SKT’s dismissal memorandum. The first findings of law and 

fact made by the court in the case were sua sponte and both were clearly erroneous. 

21. The court did not respond to Medical Supply’s arguments for reconsideration or 

correct its factual errors. It is believed that Judge O’Hara obtained the magistrate 

assignment to Medical Supply’s case against General Electric because of his relationship 

to SKT and it provided an opportunity to address the same fact pattern as the earlier case 

because GE breached its contract with Medical Supply once the electronic marketplace 

GHX, LLC created by GE and its hospital supplier competitors discovered Medical 

Supply was attempting again to enter the market for hospital supplies. 

22. On January 14 th , 2005, Andrew DeMarea was directed to file an ethics complaint 

against Bret Landrith. Like the “complaint” filed by Sherri Price, no allegations of 

misconduct appear in DeMarea’s complaint, it merely incorporates by reference attached 

Medical Supply filings in the District Court and the Tenth Circuit and the appellate 

panel’s sanction of Bret Landrith for a “frivolous appeal.” The “complaint” also 

contained Medical Supply’s motion for en banc review of the sanctions. See Atch. 8 The 

sanction order itself admitted the trial court and the hearing panel were mistaken in 

stating there was no private right of action contained in the USA PATRIOT Act. 

However, it is unfortunately clear that Judge O’Hara, Olthoff and DeMarea have no 

interest in the law, only in perpetuating a smear of Medical Supply’s counsel, despite 

clear Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court authority that the sole check on judicial 

7 


misconduct that can remedy its effect is appeal. Ramirez v. Oklahoma Dept. of Mental 

Health, 41 F.3d 584 at 589-90 (C.A.10 (Okl.), 1994). 

23. Judge O’Hara used his position as magistrate assigned to the Medical Supply action 

against General Electric to deny Medical Supply discovery. A decision he also made in 

the Bolden case. On January 20, 2005 Judge O’Hara testified under oath that he had only 

denied discovery in a few cases. He stated he was unaware of any other case he was 

assigned where Bret Landrith was an attorney. He visibly winced when he was then 

questioned if he was a magistrate in Medical Supply v. General Electric et. al. where Bret 

Landrith was the sole counsel for the plaintiff. See Atch. 9. ( transcript to be 

supplemented) 

24. The disciplinary tribunal heard arguments that Judge O’Hara was the complaining 

witness in fact for the complaint made by the assistant city attorney against Bret Landrith. 

Sherri Price made no independent allegations or observations of misconduct against Bret 

Landrith and merely incorporated by reference Magistrate O’Hara’s report and 

recommendation from Bolden’s pretrial conference. The disciplinary tribunal ordered 

Judge O’Hara to drive to Topeka and testify under oath. See Atch. 9. 

25. Judge O’Hara added to his attacks against Bret Landrith with further statements 

impugning Bret Landrith’s competence. . Judge O’Hara testified that James Bolden’s 

counsel was the worst attorney he had seen in 20 years. Magistrate O’Hara alleged that 

Mr. Landrith did not have the skill or knowledge of the law a first year law student would 

possess. See Atch. 9. 

26. Judge O’Hara made a point of addressing facts that weakened the Kansas 

Disciplinary Administrator’s case from the previous two days and made these assertions 

8 


unsolicited from the questioning of the Disciplinary Administrator and demonstrated a 

pre appearance coaching or consultation with Stanton Hazlett, especially on the point 

about Bret Landrith’s competence being less than that of a first year law student. Judge 

O’Hara could not have known that Landrith had testified the previous day that many 

states permit law students to represent clients in civil rights actions because of the 

shortage of counsel willing to undertake this difficult and unlucrative work. See Atch. 9. 

27. Judge Vratil, the presiding Judge on Bolden’s case upheld Magistrate O’Hara’s 

recommendations which cut out many claims based on City of Topeka policies that had a 

negative impact on members of a protected class. Judge Vratil relied on Magistrate 

O’Hara’s judgment that the affidavits of misconduct against process servers and Bolden’s 

witnesses provided no basis for relying on the City’s unqualified appearance as effective 

service under the alternative use of Kansas serevice of process rules and provided no 

basis for extending discovery. Judge Vratil also demonstrated an impression that Bret 

Landrith was mentally incapable of arguing motions before the court in the final case 

management conference before trial which appeared to be the result of Magistrate 

O’Hara’s influence. Later Judge Vratil was able to make an independent judgment of 

Bret Landrith’s competence demonstrated by Bolden prevailing on some motions 

disputed before trial. 

28. When Judge O’Hara returned to Kansas City, events still seemed to be set against Mr. 

Bolden’s cause. The notice that the record on appeal was complete was erroneously given 

to the Tenth Circuit, though the mistake was clear from the appearance docket that two 

transcripts that had been ordered still were not part of the record. The appeals clerk for 

9 


Kansas District court would not correct the record, Bolden made a motion to correct the 

record, which was not addressed by Magistrate O’Hara. See Atch. 10 

29. Bolden’s motion for an extension of time was sent to both the Tenth Circuit and the 

Kansas District Court. However it did not appear on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals 

appearance docket. Bolden’s counsel called the Tenth Circuit and a deputy clerk 

identified as Kathy stated that it had been received two days before but it was still not 

docketed. After the call Kathy reentered on the docket that Bolden’s brief was due 

January 26 th . See Atch. 11 

30. On the same day, counsel called the Kansas District Court appeals clerk who stated 

she was working on the letter correcting the date the record was complete. However, this 

letter did not appear on the docket the 25 th or even the 26 th . Bolden’s counsel was forced 

to work without sleep to file an incomplete appellate brief on the 26 th emailing the brief 

to the court and counsel for the City and turning in the briefs and appendixes to US Postal 

Delivery service for the Tenth Circuit and the City of Topeka. See Atch. 12 

31. Both the Kansas District Court correction of the record on appeal and the Tenth 

Circuit docketing of the motion for extension occurred after the brief and appendix was 

received, giving the appearance to an impartial observer that the events were coordinated 

to manufacture an ethics violation for Bolden’s counsel after the failure of previous 

attempts. 

32. James Bolden is unable to find counsel to represent him in defending against the final 

steps of the City of Topeka to take his two properties for a public use without 

compensating him. 

10 


33. Bret Landrith is unable to take civil rights clients because his speech has been chilled 

by the action of Judge O’Hara through the Kansas Office of the Disciplinary 

Administrator and he is likely to be disbarred for conduct required by the Kansas Rules 

of Professional Conduct. 

34. In an order where Bret Landrith was neither a party or attorney, Magistrate James P. 

P’Hara stated Bret Landrith was incompetent. During testimony under oathe, Magistrate 

O’Hara stated he could not recall ever stating in an order where Mr. Landrith was not an 

attorney that Mr. Landrith was incompetent. See Atch 13. 

STATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS 

Allegations of Conduct Violating Judicial Cannons: 

I. Judge James P. O’Hara’s name is being used in the Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy 

corporate web site, falling within the proscription of Kansas Judicial Canon 2B wherein it 

is stated . . . “a judge . . . should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private 

interests of others.” 

II. Judge James P. O’Hara has violated Kansas Judicial Canon 2, which in substance, 

provides that the judge not only must avoid impropriety, but also the appearance of 

impropriety. 

III. Judge James P. O’Hara has violated Kansas Judicial Canon 3C(1)(b), which in 

substance, provides that a judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where 

11 


he served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously 

practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter. 

IV. Judge James P. O’Hara has violated Kansas Judicial Canon 3C(1)(c) which provides, 

in substance, that a judge should disqualify himself when he knows that he has a financial 

interest in the subject matter in controversy, or any other interest that could be 

substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. “Financial interest” is defined in 

Canon 3C(3)(c) as ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small. Judge James 

P. O’Hara 

V. Judge James P. O’Hara has violated Kansas Judicial Canon 2, which in substance, 

provides that the judge not only must avoid impropriety, but also the appearance of 

impropriety. 

Allegations of criminal conduct: 

VI. Judge James P. O’Hara has violated James Bolden’s civil rights in causing the 

intimidation and harassment of James Bolden’s counsel Bret Landrith and by 

encouraging the intimidation and harassment of James Bolden and his witnesses under 

the color of Kansas law to deprive them of the right to representation, redress, freedom of 

speech and to give testimony by City of Topeka officials. Judge O’Hara’s conduct 

violates 18 U.S.C.§ 241, 18 U.S.C. §1513(b). 

VII. Judge James P. O’Hara has participated in a conspiracy between Shughart, Thomson 

& Kilroy, US Bancorp NA, The Piper Jaffray Companies, Novation LLC and Neoforma, 

Inc. to obstruct Medical Supply’s entry into the national market for hospital supplies by 

12 


attempting to intimidate and harass Medical Supply’s counsel and deprive the company 

of the means to assert its legal rights. The Hobbs Act 18 U.S.C.§1951, The Sherman 

Antitrust Act 15 U.S.C. §1 and Retaliating Against a Victim Witness or Informant 18 

U.S.C. §1513(b). 

S/ Bret D. Landrith 

S/ Sam K. Lipari 

13 


Attorney James P. O'Hara Named U.S. Magistrate Judge 

James P. O'Hara, managing partner of the Shughart Thomson & Kilroy law firm's Overland Park 

office, has been appointed U.S. Magistrate Judge in Topeka, Kansas. 

O'Hara, 44, of Overland Park, will succeed Ronald C. Newman, who died in September 1999. He will 

be one of four U.S. Magistrate Judges in Kansas, and will have a split docket between Topeka and 

Kansas City, Kansas. O'Hara was selected from among 24 applicants by U.S. District Judges in 

Kansas with the assistance of a merit selection panel of 11 Kansas lawyers and laypersons. 

"I'll miss my colleagues at Shughart Thomson & Kilroy," said O'Hara. "It's been a real pleasure to be 

associated with such a talented and experienced team of attorneys." 

John M. Kilroy, Jr., managing partner of the firm, commended O'Hara. 

"We feel lucky to have practiced law with Jim for the last 18 years. He will be an outstanding 

Magistrate and we are fortunate that he is willing to make this commitment to public service." 

As a U.S. Magistrate Judge, O'Hara will handle pre-trial scheduling and procedures for civil cases and 

will preside over settlement conferences, mediation and, with consent of the litigants, disposition of 

civil cases. Magistrate Judges also prepare criminal cases for trial and try misdemeanor cases. 

O'Hara joined Shughart Thomson & Kilroy in 1982 and was named a shareholder and director in 1987. 

During his 18-year career as a trial attorney, he has handled primarily business litigation and complex 

divorce cases. He has served on the firm's executive, associates and hiring committees, and has been 

managing partner of its 12-lawyer Overland Park office since 1998. 

O'Hara earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Nebraska in 1977 and his law degree with 

honors from Creighton University School of Law in 1980. He served as a law clerk for two Federal 

Judges: the late Robert V. Denney, U.S. District Judge in Nebraska; and C Arlen Beam, formerly U.S. 

District Judge in Nebraska, now a U.S. Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. 

He has served as a member of the Bench Bar Committee of the U.S. District Court in Kansas and as a 

member of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, a 20-member board appointed by the Kansas 

Supreme Court to conduct evidentiary hearings and adjudicate disciplinary complaints. 

Effective immediately, O'Hara has resigned as a shareholder and director of Shughart Thomson & 

Kilroy, a leading Kansas City law firm. The firm announced Tuesday that Lawrence A. Swain, Chair 

of the Intellectual Property and Technology Group, has been named the new partner in charge of the 

Overland Park office. 

About the Firm Practice Groups Attorneys News & Events Symposium 

### 

Exb 13 

Atch 1 


Click below... 

Welcome 

Company 

Industry 

Communication 

Web Services 

FAQ's 

News 

Register 

Sign In 

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS 

Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy 

and Consumer Rights of the United States Senate on "Hospital Group Purchasing: How to 

Maintain Innovation and Cost Savings" 

September 14, 2004 

Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Subcommittee on 

Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights on "Hospital Group Purchasing: Has the 

Market Become More Open to Competition 

July 16, 2003 

Hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business 

Rights and Competition on Hospital Group Purchasing: Lowering Costs at the Expense of 

Patient Health and Medical Innovations 

April 30, 2002 

LITIGATION 

Medical Supply Chain, Inc. vs. US Bancorp Piper Jaffray 

MSC vs. US Bancorp Piper Jaffray Amended Complaint 

MSC vs. US Bancorp Piper Jaffray Appeal Brief 

MSC vs. US Bancorp Piper Jaffray Order and Show Cause 

MSC vs. US Bancorp Piper Jaffray Letter to the Senate November 10 2004 

MSC vs. US Bancorp Piper Jaffray Show Cause Reply 

MSC vs. US Bancorp Piper Jaffray Letter to the Senate November 23 2004 

MSC vs. US Bancorp Piper Jaffray En Banc Motion 

MSC vs. US Bancorp Piper Jaffray En Banc Motion Attachment 1 




MSC vs. US Bancorp Piper Jaffray Sanction Order 

Motion for En Banc Rehearing of Sanctions 

Exb. 1 Order of Sanctions Pg. 17-25 

Exb. 2 En Banc Motion Pg. 26-43 

Exb. 3 Sherman Claims Pg. 44-55 

Exb. 4 Letter To Chief Clerk Patrick Fisher Pg. 56-58 

Exb. 5 Excerpt From Motion For New Trial Pg. 59-70 

Exb. 6 Trial Court Order Pg. 71-86 

Exb. 7 USA Patriot Act Claims Pg. 87-94 

Exb. 8 Appelate Show Cause Order Pg. 95-97 

Medical Supply Chain, Inc. vs. General Electric Company 

MSC vs. General Electric Company Amended Complaint 

MSC vs. General Electric Company Appeal Brief 

MSC vs. General Electric Company Answer Brief 

PRESS RELEASE 

"Medical Supply Chain Enables Interactive eBusiness Communications; A Strategy to Remove 

Artificially Inflated Health Care Cost" Exb 13 

Atch 2 


Kansas City, MO. -- January 26, 2005 

"Medical Supply Chain Targets Health Care’s Out of Control and Artificially Inflated Supply Costs With 

The Next Generation of e-Commerce" 

Kansas City, MO. -- January 11, 2005 

"Second US Attorney Death in Novation Medicare Fraud Case" 

Kansas City, MO. -- September 17 2004 

"General Electric Faces Ruling as Novation Medicare Co-Conspirator" 

Kansas City, MO. -- August 26 2004 

"General Electric Ordered Into Antitrust Mediation" 

Kansas City, MO. -- April 7 2004 

"Healthcare Marketplace Medical Supply Chain, Inc. Announces Bid to Acquire US Bank’s Troubled 

Investment Banking Unit US Bancorp Piper Jaffray" 

Kansas City, MO. -- January 27 2003 

"Healthcare Reform Suffers A Massive Blow From Improper Use of The USA Patriot Act" 

Kansas City, MO. -- February 6 2003 

"Medical Supply Chain, Inc. is Raising the Standards in Healthcare E-Commerce, Defining Efficiencies 

for the Healthcare Supply Chain." 

Kansas City, MO. -- March 21 2001 

"MedicalSupplyChain.com Launches Global Trade Exchange for Institutional Healthcare Enterprises" 

Kansas City, MO. -- May 30 2000 

"MedicalSupplyChain.com Selects theSupplyChain.com to Enable Independent Trading Exchange" 

Newport Beach, CA. -- May 25 2000 

PUBLICATIONS 

October 18 2004 "US Atorney's Office Loses 3 Go-To Guys'" 

By MATT STILES 

August 21, 2004 "Wide U.S. Inquiry Into Purchasing for Health Care" 

By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH 

September 4, 2002 "A Persistent Small Supplier Gets Contract for Hospitals" 

By BARRY MEIER 

August 15, 2002 "3 Medical Supply Companies Receive U.S. Agency Subpoenas" 


August 9, 2002 "Buying Group for Hospitals Vows Change" 

By BARRY MEIER with MARY WILLIAMS WALSH 

August 6, 2002 "Buying Group for Hospitals Changes Ways" 

By BARRY MEIER and MARY WILLIAMS WALSH 

August 4, 2002 "Hospitals Strut in a Lurching Market" 

By REED ABELSON 

August 1, 2002 "Accusation of Conflicts at a Supplier to Hospitals" 


July 24, 2002 "Audits Scrutinized at Operator of Hospital-Supplies Web Site" 


July 19, 2002 "Questioning $1 Million Fee in a Needle Deal" 

By BARRY MEIER with MARY WILLIAMS WALSH 

June 7, 2002 "A Mission to Save Money, a Record of Otherwise" 



May 1, 2002 "Senate Panel Criticizes Hospital Buying Groups" 

By BARRY MEIER and MARY WILLIAMS WALSH 

April 30, 2002 "Hospitals Sometimes Lose Money by Using a Supply Buying Group" 

By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH and BARRY MEIER 

April 27, 2002 "Hospital Group's Link to Company Is Criticized" 


April 23, 2002 "Hospital Products Get Seal of Approval at a Price" 

By BARRY MEIER 

March 26, 2002 "When a Buyer for Hospitals Has a Stake in Drugs It Buys" 


March 4, 2002 "Medicine's Middlemen; 2 Powerful Groups Hold Sway Over Buying at Many Hospitals" 

By WALT BOGLANICH 

REPORTS 

United States General Accounting Office Tuesday April 30, 2002 Testimony Before the Subcommittee 

on Antitrust, Competition, and Business and consumer Rights, Committee on the judiciary, U.S. 

Senate 

GAO GPO Report 

Blue Print For An Efficient Supply Chain Wednesday January 10, 2001 

Lynn James Everard, C.P.M., C.B.M Healthcare Supply Chain Strategist 

Blueprint for an Efficient Health Care Supply Chain 

The Exclusion of Competition For Hospital Sales Through Group Purchasing Organization Tuesday 

June 25, 2002 Harvard Law Professor Einer Elhauge 

Harvard Law Study 

MEDICAL NEWS 

Orange Juice Can Help Promote Health... 

-- Ad - http://www.floridajuice.com, Sat Jan 29 2005 00:08:00 GMT-0600 

Vietnam's 11th Bird-Flu Death Under Probe for Possible Human Transmission... 

-- Bloomberg, Sat Jan 29 2005 00:08:00 GMT-0600 

A 13-year-old girl becomes 11th bird flu death in Vietnam in a month (updated PM 02:03)... 

-- China Post, Fri Jan 28 2005 23:59:00 GMT-0600 

1 more bird flu patient in Vietnam dies, Cambodian suspected¡¡... 

-- China Economic Net, Fri Jan 28 2005 23:57:00 GMT-0600 

One more bird flu patient dies in Vietnam... 

-- Peoples Daily Online, Fri Jan 28 2005 23:56:00 GMT-0600 

ASCO-GI: Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Patients Respond to FOLFOX-6 Regimen... 

-- Doctors Guide, Fri Jan 28 2005 23:42:00 GMT-0600 

Study Confirms ICDs More Effective In Preventing Sudden Cardiac Death Than Medical Therapies... 

-- Science Daily, Fri Jan 28 2005 23:30:00 GMT-0600 

NIAID Begins Enrolling Volunteers For Novel HIV Vaccine Study... 

-- Science Daily, Fri Jan 28 2005 23:30:00 GMT-0600 

Copyright © 2000-2005 Medical Supply Chain, Inc. All rights reserved. 



Locations Publications Recruiting Archives Home 

Contact us by email at solutions@stklaw.com. 

©Shughart Thomson & Kilroy. All rights reserved. 

Click here to read our Disclaimer. 


Exb 13 

Atch 3 








IN THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE COURT 


2 TOPEKA, KANSAS 

3 

4 JAMES L. BOLDEN, ) 

24 sloppy way. 

25 I'm not sure, Mr. Bolden, that you'd 

been 

NORA LYON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

-------------------- Plaintiff, ) 

5 ) 

vs. 

) Case No. 

6 ) 02-CV-2635 

CITY OF TOPEKA, et al., ) 

7 -------------------- Defendant. ) 

8 

9 TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE-RECORDED 

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

10 BEFORE 

HONORABLE JAMES P. O'HARA 

11 on 

November 20, 2003 

12 

13 

APPEARANCES: 

14 

For the Plaintiff: Mr. Bret D. Landrith 

15 Attorney at Law 

12820 SW Highway 4 

16 Topeka, Kansas 66610 

17 For the Defendant: Ms. Sherri L. Price 

City of Topeka 

18 Legal Department 

215 Southeast 7th 

19 Topeka, Kansas 66603 

20 Court Reporter: Jana L. Willard, CSR, 

RPR 

Nora Lyon & Associates 

21 1515 South Topeka Avenue 

Topeka, Kansas 66612 

But, Mr. 

14 Bolden, you ought to be aware of the fact that 

15 if these six defendants are ultimately 

16 dismissed from the case by Judge Vratil that 

17 you would have certain remedies that you 

might 

66612 

2720 

1515 S.W. Topeka Blvd., Topeka, KS 

Phone: (785) 232-2545 FAX: (785) 232- 

41 

1 doing any worse if you were to represent 

2 yourself. And I have a lot of folks in civil 

3 rights case that do represent themselves. But 

4 this case, in this Court and based on what is 

5 of public record in the Kansas Court of 

6 Appeals, is disturbing to say the least. 

you 

18 want to discuss with another lawyer that 

19 could exercise against Mr. Landrith, who's 

20 charged with responsibly and 

professionally 

21 representing you in this case. And I-- I don't 

22 mean to be uncharitable to either of you, but 

23 this case has been handled in an 

exceptionally 

ATTACHMENT 8 

Exb 13 

Atch 4 


19 In contrast, as a practical matter, it appears that plaintiff probably would suffer little, 

if any, prejudice if the individual defendants were dismissed. 

Fn 19, Magistrate O’Hara’s Report and Recommendation pg. 10 

Stated more directly, the court is deeply troubled by Mr. Landrith’s apparent 

incompetence. The pleadings he has filed (see, e.g., docs. 1, 13, 23, 35, 37, & 42), and 

his non-responsive, rambling, ill-informed legal arguments during the pretrial conference, 

suggest that he is not conversant with even the most basic aspects of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. The court doubts that Mr. Landrith has any better grasp of the 

substantive law that applies to this case. Based on what transpired at the pretrial 

conference, plaintiff appears more articulate than Mr. Landrith. Plaintiff may be better 

served by representing himself without any attorney if indeed Mr. Landrith is the only 

attorney willing to take the case. 

Magistrate O’Hara’s Report and Recommendation pg. 12 

The Clerk’s Office shall serve copies of this report and recommendation on all counsel of 

record, and shall also send a copy via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the 

plaintiff, Mr. James L. Bolden, at 4218 S.E. Ridgeview Terrace, Topeka, Kansas 66609. 

Magistrate O’Hara’s Report and Recommendation pg. 13 

Exb 13 

Atch 5 


Exb 13 

Atch 6 


02-3443 Medical Supply Chain v. US Bancorp, NA., et al 

1/6/03 [1577139] Appellant's corrected brief filed by Medical 

Supply Chain. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 

1/6/03. Oral argument n. Appendix filed. Original and 2 

appendix copies. Appellee's brief due 2/10/03 for Unknown 

Healthcare, for Brian Kabbes, for Lars Anderson, for Susan 

Paine, for Andrew Cesere, for Piper Jaffray, for Mutual 

Fund Services, for Institutional Trust, for Corporate 

Trust, for US Bank Private and for US Bancorp, NA. (kf) 

[02-3443] 

1/8/03 [1576827] Appellant's motion for preliminary injunction 

pending appeal submitted to court. (mt) [02-3443] 

1/9/03 [1577188] Order filed by Judges Seymour & O'Brien denying 

appellant's motion for preliminary injunction pending 

appeal. Parties served by mail. (mt) [02-3443] 

Docket as of April 27, 2004 11:02 am Page 5 

Proceedings include all events. 

02-3443 Medical Supply Chain v. US Bancorp, NA., et al 

1/10/03 [1577795] Notice of appearance filed by Mark A. Olthoff 

and Andrew M. DeMarea as attorney for defendants US 

Bancorp, NA., US Bank Private, Corporate Trust, 

Institutional Trust, Mutual Fund Services, Piper Jaffray, 

Andrew Cesere, Susan Paine, Lars Anderson, Brian Kabbes, 

except "Unknown Healthcare Supplier". CERT. OF INTERESTED 

PARTIES (y/n): y. (mt) [02-3443] 

1/10/03 [1577801] Appellees' Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement 

(Corporate Disclosure Statement) filed by all defendants 

other than "Unknown Healthcare Supplier". Original and 3 

copies. c/s: y. (mt) [02-3443] 

1/13/03 [1578207] Appellees' response filed by US Bancorp, NA., et 

al., to Appellant's motion for preliminary injunction 

pending appeal. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y (kjs) 

[02-3443] 

1/21/03 [1580331] Filed notice record is complete 1/10/03. (mt) 

[02-3443] 

2/12/03 [1587114] Appellee's motion to extend time to file 

appellee's brief until 3/12/03 filed by US Bancorp, NA., US 

Bank Private, Corporate Trust, Institutional Trust, Mutual 

Fund Services, Piper Jaffray, Andrew Cesere, Susan Paine, 

Lars Anderson, Brian Kabbes. Original and 3 copies. c/s: 

y (kjs) [02-3443] 

2/13/03 [1587526] Order filed by PF granting Appellees motion to 

extend time to file eres brief until [1587114-1] 3/12/03 

for Brian Kabbes, et al. No further extensions. Parties 

served by mail. (kjs) [02-3443] 

3/13/03 [1595409] Appellee's brief filed by US Bancorp, NA., et 

al.. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 3/12/03. 

Oral Argument n, Appendix filed. Original and 1 appendix 

copy. Appendix Pages: 44. Appellant's optional reply brief 

due 3/31/03 for Medical Supply Chain. (sl) [02-3443] 

3/31/03 [1599620] Appellant's reply brief filed by Medical Supply 

Chain. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y (kjs) 

ATTACHMENT 7 

Exb 13 

Atch 7 


Exb 13 

Atch 8 



Exb 9 















































































) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Case No. 03-2324-CM 

) 

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

ORDER 

This case comes before the court on defendants’ motion to stay all proceedings 

pending resolution of their separate motion to dismiss (doc. 15). Plaintiff opposes 

defendants’ motion to stay. After reviewing the defendants’ motion and plaintiff’s response 

(doc. 19), the court is prepared to rule. Defendants’ reply is not yet due. However, it is clear 

to the court that the instant motion should be granted. Therefore, the court will address the 

motion without awaiting further briefing. 

The court may stay discovery if: (1) the case is likely to be finally concluded via the 

dispositive motion; (2) the facts sought through discovery would not affect the resolution of 

the dispositive motion; or (3) discovery on all issues posed by the complaint would be 

wasteful and burdensome. 1 The decision whether to stay discovery rests in the sound 

1 

Wolf v. United States, 157 F.R.D. 494, 495 (D. Kan. 1994) (citing Kutilek v. 

Gannon, 132 F.R.D. 296, 297-98 (D. Kan. 1990)). 

O:\ORDERS\03-2324-CM-15.wpd 

Exb 9A 


discretion of court. As a practical matter, this calls for a case-by-case determination. Upon 

reviewing the record in this case, the court concludes that a stay of all proceedings is 

warranted. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is based on the facts as plead in plaintiff’s 

complaint, so the facts sought through discovery will not affect the resolution of that motion. 

In the event U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia grants the motion to dismiss, the discovery 

sought would be wasteful and burdensome. Most notably, while not presuming to predict 

whether Judge Murguia will grant the motion to dismiss, it appears from the undersigned 

magistrate judge’s review of the briefs filed in connection with motion to dismiss that 

defendants may very well prevail. 

In opposition to defendants’ motion, plaintiff oddly cites the incorrect standard for 

the court’s decision to stay discovery, and then proceeds to make an argument that makes 

little sense to the court. In any event, it is clear to the court that a stay is appropriate in this 

case. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Defendants’ motion to stay all discovery and other pretrial proceedings 

pending resolution of their separate motion to dismiss (doc. 15) is granted. 

2. A copy of this order shall be served upon all counsel of record and all 

unrepresented parties. The scheduling conference that was set for October 31, 

2003 is cancelled. 



Dated this 24th day of October, 2003, at Kansas City, Kansas. 

s/ James P. O’Hara 

James P. O’Hara 




Exb 9B 

CASE NO.: 2:03-cv-2324 

____________________________________________ 


Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JEFFREY R. IMMELT 

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL BUSINESS ASSET FUNDING CORPORATION 

GE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS GLOBAL SIGNALING, L.L.C. 

Defendants. 

____________________________________________ 

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY 

The defendants seek a stay of the implementation of the federal civil procedure statutes regarding discovery. The 

standards for a stay are (a) the likelihood of success on appeal; (b) the threat of irreparable harm if the stay is 

not granted; (c) the absence of harm to opposing parties; and (d) the risk of harm to the public interest. See, 

e.g., Spain v. Podrebarac, 68 F.3d 1246, 1247 (10th Cir. 1995). 

1. The defendants will not suffer irreparable injury if the stay is not granted and have made no argument or 

showing that they will. The GE defendants had the opportunity to avoid antitrust discovery when the 

consequences of their actions in the present circumstances were explained to them and they chose under the 

advice of their present counsel to commit a felony per se refusal to deal and injure Medical Supply and the 

market for hospital supplies in conduct the U. S. Supreme Court has repeatedly found cannot be excused by 

business motive and to which there is no defense. 

2. The public interest in respecting affordable access to healthcare weighs against a stay of discovery. See, e.g., 

Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 484 (1988); Rowan v. United States Post Office Dept, 397 U.S. 728, 737 

(1970). Second, the census data showing the previous year saw a more than 2 million person increase in the 

number of Americans without healthcare insurance due to the weakened economy and the inability of employers 

and insurance companies to absorb the inflationary cost increases of healthcare endangers more than 43 million 

Americans. The latest data presented in this action indicates 18,000 Americans die each year because of their 


lack of health insurance and the consequential loss of access to adequate healthcare. This data does not include 

the under insured Americans who because of healthcare’s inflated or non efficient costs have had their health 

insurance reduced to catastrophic coverage without funding for regular preventative care. The Medical Supply 

counsel’s own brother in law is representative of an additional cohort of victims that may be many times 

18,000. A noted Wichita sculptor, Bart Ewonus died in these circumstances in December 2002 at age 43 after 

this court denied Medical Supply’s relief against GE’s coconspirators as a result of failing to go to the 

emergency room when he thought he could recover on his own from the flu. When he did go to the doctor’s 

office during regular hours, it was found he had severe pneumonia. Although he was immediately hospitalized, 

it was two late. The public has an expectation interest that the federal antitrust laws will be enforced including 

those that shift the burden of discovery onto the defendants. 

3. There is no likelihood of success on the merits of their motion for dismissal, (which must be now converted 

to a motion for summary judgment necessitating discovery). They have by mistake or deception, failed to 

address the plaintiff’s charge that the GE Defendants have acted in combination and in conspiracy with 

Neoforma, Inc., a company that is not a subsidiary of GE. The goal of that conspiracy was to deprive Medical 

Supply of the capital to enter the healthcare market, an integrel part of the antitrust violation antitrust injury 

recognized in the Tenth Circuit case Reazin v. Blue Cross And Blue Shield of Kansas, 663 F. Supp. 1360 at 

1414 (D. Kan. 1987). 

4. Medical Supply and the American healthcare market has been injured, though under a per se to deal, no 

injury need be shown. The defendants’ heightened standard of pleading for contracts is incorrect for Missouri 

and Kansas where, even under fact based pleading, both states apply liberal rules to what the court must infer or 

examine in the entire contents of a pleading before dismissing a claim prior to discovery. The defendants’ 

theory, that a condition precedent is inadequately pled is itself wrong on its face under Missouri contract law. 

The recognition of a condition precedent imposes an enforceable contract with duties for both parties. 


Repudiation and the defendants’ failure to verify whether they were observing the contract excuse Medical 

Supply of any duty. See plaintiff’s reply to motion to dismiss. 

5. Medical Supply under antitrust and contract law is clearly entitled to its expectations under Missouri and 

Kansas law in its deal with the GE defendants, where they had knowledge of those expectations before 

committing an antitrust violation against Medical Supply or breaching the contract to purchase the lease from 

Medical Supply. The GE conspirators have committed a separate and distinct predicate act from the previous 

acts committed by US Bancorp/Neoforma. Depending on the length of this action and whether Medical 

Supply’s market opportunity still exists at the conclusion, that injury is 4 to 6 million dollars a day. Both the 

defendants (notwithstanding the advice of their otherwise capable counsel) and Medical Supply are injured by 

any delay in the prosecution of this matter. 

Whereas, the injury suffered by Medical Supply and the American market for healthcare supplies and the related 

market for healthcare services in which costs are dependent on supplies is immense, and increases exponentially 

as Medical Supply is denied relief, the plaintiff respectfully requests the court deny the defendants motion for 

stay of discovery. 


S/----------- 

Bret D. Landrith, Esq 

Supreme Court No. 20380 

12820 SW Hwy 4 


Cell 816-365-1306 


I certify that on October 10th, 2003, emailed this document to the defense counsel named below: 

Jonathan L. Glecken 

Ryan Z. Watts 

Arnold & Porter 

555 Twelfth Street, N.W. 


Washington, DC 20004-1206 

John K. Power 

Husch & Eppenberger, LLC. 

1200 Main Street 

Suite 1700 


Counsel for: 

JEFFREY R. IMMELT 

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL BUSINESS ASSET FUNDING CORPORATION 

GE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS GLOBAL SIGNALING, L.L.C. 

S/----------- 

Bret D. Landrith, Esq 

Supreme Court No. 20380 

12820 SW Hwy 4 


Cell 816-365-1306 


Bolden v. Topeka City of, et al 

Assigned to: Judge Kathryn H. Vratil 

Demand: $0 

Case in other court: 

10CCA, 04-03306 

Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act 

Date Filed: 12/20/2002 

U.S. District Court 

District of Kansas (Kansas City) 

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:02-cv-02635-KHV 

10/25/2004 

122 

TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM by Court Reporter Theresa Hallberg ordering transcripts of 6/10/04, 11/24/03, 7/9/04 re 118 Notice 

of Appeal - Final Judgment filed by James L Bolden ( Appeal No. 04-3306) Transcript due by 12/14/2004. (trs) (Entered: 

10/25/2004) 

11/23/2004 

123 

TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM by Court Reporter Nora Lyon ordering transcripts of Pretrial Conference re 118 Notice of Appeal - 

Final Judgment filed by James L Bolden ( Appeal No. 04-3306) Transcript due by 12/15/2004. (km) (Entered: 11/30/2004) 

12/10/2004 

124 

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held 11-20-03 before Judge James P. O'Hara,Transcript of Tape-Recorded Final Pretrial 

Conference, 68 pgs., Court Reporter: Jana L. Willard. 

(Nora Lyon & Associates, ) (Entered: 12/10/2004) 

12/14/2004 

125 

Letter to Court of Appeals from Court Reporter, Nora Lyon, stating that all transcripts ordered in this case have been filed with the 

Clerk of the District Court as of 12/8/04. (km) (Entered: 12/17/2004) 

12/17/2004 

126 

LETTER TO 10CCA stating record is complete re 118 Notice of Appeal - Final Judgment ( Appeal No. 04-3306) (km, ) (Entered: 

12/19/2004) 

01/14/2005 

127 

MOTION to Amend/Correct Record on Appeal Status by Plaintiff James L Bolden(Landrith, Bret) (Entered: 01/14/2005) 

01/20/2005 

128 

NOTICE of Appeal Brief Extension by James L Bolden (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Motion for Extension# 2 Supplement 

Attached Motion to Correct)(Landrith, Bret) (Entered: 01/20/2005) 

01/24/2005 

129 

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held 6-10-04 before Judge khv, Court Reporter: teh. 

(Hallberg, Teri) (Entered: 01/24/2005) 

01/24/2005 

130 

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held 7-9-04 before Judge khv, Court Reporter: teh. 

(Hallberg, Teri) (Entered: 01/24/2005) 

01/27/2005 

131 

Letter to 10CCA stating the record is not complete. A new letter notifying the Court of Appeals will be transmitted when all 

requested transcripts have been filed. re 118 Notice of Appeal - Final Judgment (Appeal No. 04-3306) (km) (Entered: 

01/27/2005) 

ATTACHMENT 10 

Exb 13 

Atch 10 


United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit 

Case Summary 

Court of Appeals Docket #: 04-3306 Filed: 8/18/04 

Nsuit: 3440 

Bolden v. City of Topeka 

Appeal from: United States District Court for the District of Kansas 

9/23/04 [1742810] Fee paid. Date paid in District Court on 9/1/04. 

(mt) 

9/24/04 [1743271] Case referred for mediation conferencing. (sl) 

9/28/04 [1743929] Order filed by PF - Transcript order form due 

10/13/04 for attorney for Bolden. Parties served by mail. 

(kf) 

9/30/04 [1745690] Appellant's motion filed by Appellant James L. 

Bolden to extend time to file appellant's brief until 

12/5/04. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y. (mt) 

10/5/04 [1745967] Order filed by PF (eas) denying appellant's 

motion to extend time to file appellant's brief as 

unnecessary. - Transcript order form is due 10/13/04 for 

Theresa E. Hallberg pursuant to Rule 42. The briefing 

schedule will commence when the district court issues a 

notice that the record is complete. 10th Cir.R. 31.1(A)(1). 

To the extent ongoing state court proceedings will impact 

counsel's representation in this matter, he shall keep this 

court fully apprised of those proceedings. Parties served 

by mail. (mt) 

10/12/04 [1747837] Acknowledgement of transcript order filed by 

James L. Bolden. Transcript order due 10/22/04 for Theresa 

E. Hallberg. (sl) 

10/27/04 [1752410] Transcript order form filed by Theresa E. 

Hallberg and Bret D. Landrith. Transcript due 12/14/04 for 

Theresa E. Hallberg. (Trial proceedings 6/10/04, 11/24/03, 

7/9/04, and motion hearing only 7/9/04) (mt) 

11/1/04 [1754014] Acknowledgement of transcript order filed by 

James L. Bolden. Transcript order due 11/12/04 for Nora 

Lyon. (Pre trial conference) (mt) 

11/15/04 [1756693] Case mediation conferencing terminated. (sl) 

11/22/04 [1758914] Transcript order form filed by Nora Lyon and Bret 

D. Landrith. Transcript of pretrial conference held 11/20/03 

due 12/15/04 for Nora Lyon. (mt) 

12/13/04 [1764637] Notice filed that the transcript was filed by 

Nora Lyon in district court on 12/8/04. (kjs) 

12/27/04 [1768263] Filed notice record is complete 12/17/04. 

Appellant's brief and appendix due 1/26/05 for James L. 

Bolden. (kjs) 

1/24/05 [1776865] Appellant's motion filed by James L. Bolden to 

restart the briefing schedule 40 days from date of amended 

notice from district court or to extend time 20 days from 

January 26, 2005, until 2/15/05 [04-3306]. Original and 3 

copies. c/s: y (mt) 

PACER ATTACHMENT 11 

Exb 13 

Atch 11 


From: eposone@mobil1.net 

Subject: Bolden v. City of Topeka, et al Case No. 04-3306 

Date: January 26, 2005 10:34:35 PM CST 

To: 

esubmission@ca10.uscourts.gov 

Cc: 

SPrice@Topeka.org 

1 Attachment, 388 KB 

January 26th, 2005 

TO: Clerk of the Tenth Circuit Court 

Byron White U.S. Courthouse 


Denver, CO 80257. 

RE: Bolden v. City of Topeka, et al Case No. 04-3306, Kan. Dist. Ct. Case 02-02635 

Dear Clerk of the Tenth Circuit Court, 

Your office has received my January 20th, 2005 motion requesting an extension of time in which to file the opening brief. This 

Tenth Circuit motion is also entered in the District Court appearance docket of the Bolden case on January 20th, 2005. 

On January 25th, after several weeks of inquiries, I was informed by the district court clerk that handles appeals that the erroneous 

notice the record on appeal was complete sent to you previously was being corrected and that the letter was being prepared for 

you. 

Today, however I observe that neither the entry of the correction appears yet on the district court docket and my motion requesting 

an extension of time does not appear on your appearance docket. 

I am filing a brief today for James Bolden via US Mail delivery service and via email in pdf format. I am mailing you today via US 

Mail delivery service two copies of the appendix which is the complete and final appendix for the brief, it is unfortunately larger 

than your email file size limit. 

If the record on appeal correction or the motion for extension gives more time for Bolden to file an appellant brief, please disregard 

today’s brief, but retain the appendix and I will serve on you and opposing counsel the final version of the opening brief by its new 

due date. 



___________________ 



# G33, 

2961 SW Central Park, 


1-785-267-4084 



I certify I have sent a copy of this cover letter and the appendix via U.S. Mail delivery service to opposing counsel for the 

City of Topeka on January 26th, 2005: 

Sprice@topeka. org 

Sherri Price 

City of Topeka 

215 E. 7th 



___________________ 



ATTACHMENT 12 

Exb 13 

Atch 12 


“Defendant's second allegation is that an attorney for the defendants in the Bolden case, 

Sherri Price, filed an ethics complaint against the plaintiff's attorney, Bret 

Landrith, and that Ms. Price filed the complaint at the direction of the undersigned 

magistrate judge. While the undersigned did comment on the record that there 

were serious doubts about Mr. Landrith's competency to practice law, the 

undersigned did not direct anyone to file an ethics complaint. Even if that were the case, 

however, the ethics complaint filed by Ms. Price deals with the behavior of Mr. Landrith 

in his practice of law in that matter, and has no bearing on the instant case.” [ emphasis 

added] 

Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara’s July 29, 2004 order at page 3 denying pro se 

plaintiff Melvin Johnson’s motion seeking recusal in the pro se plaintiff Melvin Johnson 

v.Topeka Housing Authority, Kansas District Court Case No. 04-4062-SAC. 

ATTACHMENT 13 

Exb 13 

Atch 13 




KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 


(Party in interest Samuel K. Lipari) ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) Case No. 05-2299 

NEOFORMA, INC. et al 

) Formerly W.D. MO. 

) Case No. 05-0210 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Comes now, the plaintiff Medical Supply Chain, Samuel 

K. Lipari appearing pro se and respectfully requests the 

court reconsider it dismissal order, (Doc. 78 ). The order 

in clear error contradicts controlling US Supreme Court 

authority. 


1. The federally actionable conduct complained of in 

the current case occurred after the date federally 

actionable conduct was averred in Medical Supply Chain, 

Inc. v. US Bancorp, NA, et al, case number 02-2539-CM 

(“Medical Supply I”) 

2. The merger of the two remaining web based hospital 

supply distributor competitors of Medical Supply averred in 

the current complaint as an agreement made by the 

defendants to monopolize the hospital supply market did not 

take place until March of 2006, a year after the current 

complaint. 

1 

Exb 14 


3. The defendants were not parties in Medical Supply 

Chain, Inc. v. General Electric Company, et al., case 

number 03-2324-CM (“Medical Supply II”). 


A court will alter or amend judgment or reconsider its 

ruling when there is a need to correct clear error or 

prevent manifest injustice. Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. 

Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995); Priddy v. 

Massanari, 2001 WL 1155268, at *2 (D. Kan. Sept. 28, 2001). 

1. The prior case outcomes cannot determine the present 

action 

The defendants Novation, LLC (“Novation”), VHA Inc. 

(“VHA”), University Healthsystem Consortium (“UHC”), Robert 

Baker, Curt Nonomaque, Neoforma and Robert J. Zollars were 

not defendants or plaintiffs in either of the preceding 

cases. The defendant Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C.while 

in recognizable privity as counsel to defendants in Medical 

Supply I, 1 

were not parties in Medical Supply II and the 

conduct averred in the present complaint did not take place 

1 

B-S Steel of Kansas, Inc. v. Texas Industries, 327 

F.Supp.2d 1252 (D. Kan., 2004) “But, privity does not 

require the plaintiff and defendant to be parties to an 

agreement. "Privity requires, at a minimum, a substantial 

identity between the issues in controversy and showing 

[that] the parties in the two actions are really and 

substantially in interest the same." Quoting Lowell Staats 

Mining Co. v. Philadelphia Elect. Co., 878 F.2d 1271, 1275 

(10th Cir.1989). 

2 


until after the filing of the plaintiff’s averments in 

Medical Supply I. 

The Supreme Court case of Lawlor v. National Screen 

Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322, 75 S.Ct. 865, 99 L.Ed. 1122 

(1955), is controlling. In Lawlor, the plaintiffs brought 

an antitrust action in 1942 alleging that the defendants, 

National Screen and three producers, had conspired to 

establish a monopoly in the distribution of advertising 

posters to motion picture exhibitors through the use of 

exclusive licenses, and that the plaintiffs' business had 

been injured as a result. In 1943, prior to trial, that 

suit was settled and dismissed with prejudice. Id. at 324, 

75 S.Ct. at 866. The settlement was based upon an agreement 

by National Screen to furnish plaintiffs with all standard 

accessories distributed by National Screen pursuant to its 

exclusive license agreements. In 1949, the plaintiffs 

brought another antitrust action, this time alleging that 

the prior settlement was merely a device used by the 

defendants to perpetuate their conspiracy and monopoly. 

Plaintiffs also alleged that five other producers had 

joined the conspiracy since the 1943 dismissal, that 

defendant National Screen had deliberately made slow and 

erratic deliveries of advertising materials in an effort to 

destroy plaintiffs' business, and that defendant had used 

3 


tie-in sales and other means of exploiting its monopoly 

power. Id. at 325, 75 S.Ct. at 867. The Supreme Court held 

that the latter suit was not barred by res judicata because 

the two suits were not based on the same cause of action. 

Id. at 327, 75 S.Ct. at 868. The Court noted: 

“That both suits involved "essentially the same course 

of wrongful conduct" is not decisive. Such a course of 

conduct--for example, an abatable nuisance--may 

frequently give rise to more than a single cause of 

action.... While the 1943 judgment precludes recovery 

on claims arising prior to its entry, it cannot be 

given the effect of extinguishing claims which did not 

even then exist and which could not possibly have been 

sued upon in the previous case.” 

Id. at 327-28, 75 S.Ct. at 868 (footnote omitted). 

See also Cellar Door Productions, Inc. of Michigan v. Kay, 

897 F.2d 1375 at 1376-77 (C.A.6 (Mich.), 1990). 

The Seventh Circuit has also followed Lawlor insofar 

as it held that "[i]n the context of a continuing scheme to 

violate the antitrust laws, a cause of action accrues to 

the plaintiff each time the defendant engages in antitrust 

conduct that harms the plaintiff." Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. 

Co. v. Sealy, Inc., 669 F.2d 490, 494 (7th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 459 U.S. 943, 103 S.Ct. 257, 74 L.Ed.2d 201 (1982). 

The Fifth Circuit explored Lawlor’s application in 

Exhibitors Poster Exchange, Inc. v. National Screen Service 

Corp., 421 F.2d 1313 (5th Cir.1970). 

4 


“On appeal, the Fifth Circuit first examined the 

meaning of "cause of action" for res judicata purposes 

and found that the doctrine did not apply to a liberal 

reading of the third complaint. The court distinguished 

cases in which damages came from a prior act, such as 

breach of contract, or series of acts that have been 

completed except in their consequences and cases in 

which damages arose from actions subsequently 

occurring, either alone or in combination with the 

completed actions. On the facts before it, the court 

held that "significant actions ... occurring subsequent 

to 1961, either alone or in combination with acts 

[completed prior to 1961] except for their 

consequences" may be the basis for new damage claims 

since the harm currently alleged by plaintiff did not 

arise out of the particularized activities previously 

adjudicated. 421 F.2d at 1318. As for collateral 

estoppel, the court examined the issues raised in the 

earlier cases and held that the effect of the orders 

granting summary judgment was to wipe out all claims 

against the defendants arising out of the 1961 actions. 

Plaintiff was entitled, however, to establish antitrust 

violations and damages by proof covering post-1961 

activities.” 

Harkins Amusement v. Harry Nace Co., 648 F.Supp. 1212 

at 1215 (Ariz., 1986) The Harkins court ultimately found 

that consumer fraud claims brought against the defendants 

later conduct could not be precluded. Id. At 1216. 

The facts of the Medical Supply case before us are 

similar to those of Cream Top Creamery v. Dean Milk Co., 

383 F.2d 358 (6th Cir.1967). Cream Top involved an action 

alleging a continuing scheme to violate antitrust laws 

subsequent to a prior dismissal with prejudice. In that 

case, the court relied upon Lawlor in reversing the 

District Court's order granting summary judgment on res 

5 


judicata grounds. The court noted, "[a]t least insofar as 

the complaint alleges violations since the dismissal of the 

[first] case, the judgment in that case cannot be given the 

effect of extinguishing a claim which arose subsequent to 

that judgment." Id. at 363 (citing Lawlor, 349 U.S. 322, 75 

S.Ct. 865). 

The Cellar Door court stated: 

“In the case before us, Olympia and Brass Ring's course 

of conduct could give rise to more than one cause of 

action. Each time the arrangement precluded Cellar Door 

from competitively bidding for an event, a cause of 

action may have accrued to Cellar Door. Therefore, as 

in Lawlor and Cream Top, those causes of action that 

arose subsequent to the 1983 dismissal are not barred 

by res judicata. Accordingly, we must reverse the 

District Court's order granting summary judgment in 

favor of appellees.” 

Cellar Door Productions, Inc. of Michigan v. Kay, 897 

F.2d 1375 at 1378 (C.A.6 (Mich.), 1990). 

2. Claim preclusion 

Claim preclusion clearly does not apply to the 

Novation defendants who were not parties to the previous 

action. The Novation defendants were not in privity or 

controlling the previous actions. The US Supreme Court in 

Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corporation resolved 

these issues: 

a. Privity 

6 


The Novation defendants are not parties in privity for 

the purposes of collateral estoppel. “Restatement, 

Judgments, § 83, Comment a: 'those who control an action 

although not parties to it * * *; those whose interests are 

represented by a party to the action * * *; successors in 

interest. * * *' “Id ar fn 19 “It is sufficient here to 

point out that the five defendants do not fall within the 

orthodox categories of privies;” Id. at pg. 329 

b. prior outcome of injunction no bar 

Nor does the plaintiff’s failure to prevail against 

the previous defendants estop the present action: 

“There is no merit, therefore, in the respondents' 

contention that petitioners are precluded by their 

failure in the 1942 suit to press their demand for 

injunctive relief. Particularly is this so in view of 

the public interest in vigilant enforcement of the 

antitrust laws through the instrumentality of the 

private treble-damage action. Acceptance of the 

respondents' novel contention would in effect confer on 

them a partial immunity from civil liability for future 

violations. Such a result is consistent with neither 

the antitrust laws nor the doctrine of res judicata.” 

Id. at pg. 329. 

c. Necessary Parties 

Nor does the plaintiff’s failure to prevail against 

the previous defendants estop the present action: 

“in any event there was no obligation to join them 

in the 1942 case since as joint tort-feasors they were 

not indispensable parties; and that their liability was 

not 'altogether dependent upon the culpability' of the 

defendants in the 1942 suit.” 

7 


Id pg. 328. 

d. Identity of claims 

Under federal law, collateral estoppel may be invoked 

only if "the issue previously decided is identical with the 

one presented in the action in question." Frandsen v. 

Westinghouse Corp., 46 F.3d 975, 978 (10th Cir.1995). 

The current complaint states claims for subsequent 

conduct and conduct not yet ripe in the earlier litigation. 

“...if future damages are unascertainable, a cause of 

action for such damages does not accrue until they occur. 

Zenith, 401 U.S. at 339, 91 S.Ct. at 806.” Kaw Valley Elec. 

Co-op. Co., Inc. v. Kansas Elec. Power Co-op., Inc., 872 

F.2d 931 at FN4 (C.A.10 (Kan.), 1989). See also Barnosky 

Oils Inc., v. Union Oil Co., 665 F.2d 74, 82 (6th Cir. 

1981). US Bank was still attempting to perform the 

financing part of the contract after Medical Supply filed 

its injunctive relief. If “the initial refusal is not 

final, each time the victim seeks to deal with the violator 

and is rejected, a new cause of action accrues. See Pace 

Indus., 813 F.2d at 237-39; Midwestern Waffles, Inc. v. 

Waffle House, Inc., 734 F.2d 705, 714-15 (11th 

Cir.1984).”Kaw Valley Elec. Co-op. Co., Inc. v. Kansas 

8 


Elec. Power Co-op., Inc., 872 F.2d 931 at 933-4 (C.A.10 

(Kan.), 1989). 

Lawlor v. National Screen also clarifies this issue: 

“The conduct presently complained of was all 

subsequent to the 1943 judgment. In addition, there are 

new antitrust violations alleged here—deliberately slow 

deliveries and tie-in sales, among others—not present 

in the former action. While the 1943 judgment precludes 

recovery on claims arising prior to its entry, it 

cannot be given the effect of extinguishing claims 

which did not even then exist and which could not 

possibly have been sued upon in the previous case. In 

the interim, moreover, there was a substantial change 

in the scope of the defendants' alleged monopoly; five 

other producers had granted exclusive licenses to 

National Screen, with the result that the defendants' 

control over the market for standard accessories had 

increased to nearly 100%. Under these circumstances, 

whether the defendants' conduct be regarded as a series 

of individual torts or as one continuing tort, the 1943 

judgment does not constitute a bar to the instant 

suit.” [ emphasis added] 

Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corporation, 349 

U.S. 322 at 328, 75 S.Ct. 865, 99 L.Ed. 1122 (1955) 

Collateral Estoppel Is Inapplicable To The Novation 

Defendants 

The defense has no clothes. Clearly the three required 

elements for claim preclusion or collateral estoppel do not 

exist: 

“The three requirements for application of claim 

preclusion are: (1) identity or privity of the parties; 

(2) identity of the cause of action; and (3) a final 

judgment on the merits. Id. Where these three 

requirements are met, claim preclusion applies to bar 

the maintenance of a subsequent suit.” 

9 


Heard v. Board of Pub. Util. of Kansas City, Ks, 316 

F.Supp.2d 980 at 982 (D. Kan., 2004). 

3. Antitrust Conspiracy Sufficiently Pled 

There is no heightened pleading standard for 

conspiracy or antitrust conspiracy. The claims adequately 

apprise the defendants of the gravamen of their conduct: 

Under the law, a conspiracy may consist of any mutual 

agreement or arrangement, knowingly made, between two or 

more competitors. Law v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n 

185 F.R.D. 324, 336, n.19 (D. Kan. 1999). The plaintiff has 

met the burden of pleading a conspiracy by "identif[ying] 

the co-conspirators and describ[ing] the nature and effect 

of the alleged conspiracy." Alco Standard Corp. v. Schmid 

Bros., 647 F.Supp. 4, 6 (S.D.N.Y.1986). 

The hospital supply competitors VHA and UHC’s joint 

ownership and agreement to exclusively use the electronic 

marketplace Neoforma is such a prohibited combination and 

conspiracy. 

The hospital supply competitors VHA and UHC’s 

formation of the defendant limited liability company 

Novation is identified in the complaint as a conspiracy to 

restrain trade specifically prohibited under Dagher v. 

Saudi Refining Inc., No. 02-56509 (Fed. 9th Cir. 6/1/2004) 

(Fed. 9th Cir., 2004). 

10 


The plaintiffs other Sherman 1 claims are equally 

undismissable. See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs. 

Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 478, 112 S.Ct. 2072, 119 L.Ed.2d 265 

(1992) ("The alleged conduct — higher service prices and 

market foreclosure — is facially anticompetitive and 

exactly the harm that antitrust laws aim to prevent."); 

United States v. VISA U.S.A., Inc., 344 F.3d 229, at 241-43 

(2d Cir.2003) (rules for vendor participation causing 

reduction in output and consumer choice had anticompetitive 

effect); Primetime 24 Joint Venture v. National 

Broadcasting Co., 219 F.3d 92, 103-04 (2d Cir.2000) 

(refusing to dismiss where complaint alleged agreement 

resulting in denial of a necessary input to a competitor). 

There is no heightened pleading standard for 

conspiracy or antitrust conspiracy. The claims adequately 

apprise the defendants of the gravamen of their conduct: 

Under the law, a conspiracy may consist of any mutual 

agreement or arrangement, knowingly made, between two or 

more competitors. Law v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n 

185 F.R.D. 324, 336, n.19 (D. Kan. 1999). The plaintiff has 

met the burden of pleading a conspiracy by "identif[ying] 

the co-conspirators and describ[ing] the nature and effect 

of the alleged conspiracy." Alco Standard Corp. v. Schmid 

Bros., 647 F.Supp. 4, 6 (S.D.N.Y.1986). 

11 


The hospital supply competitors VHA and UHC’s joint 

ownership and agreement to exclusively use the electronic 

marketplace Neoforma is such a prohibited combination and 

conspiracy. 

The hospital supply competitors VHA and UHC’s 

formation of the defendant limited liability company 

Novation is identified in the complaint as a conspiracy to 

restrain trade specifically prohibited under Dagher v. 

Saudi Refining Inc., No. 02-56509 (Fed. 9th Cir. 6/1/2004) 

(Fed. 9th Cir., 2004). 

The plaintiffs other Sherman 1 claims are equally 

undismissable. See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs. 

Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 478, 112 S.Ct. 2072, 119 L.Ed.2d 265 

(1992) ("The alleged conduct — higher service prices and 

market foreclosure — is facially anticompetitive and 

exactly the harm that antitrust laws aim to prevent."); 

United States v. VISA U.S.A., Inc., 344 F.3d 229, at 241-43 

(2d Cir.2003) (rules for vendor participation causing 

reduction in output and consumer choice had anticompetitive 

effect); Primetime 24 Joint Venture v. National 

Broadcasting Co., 219 F.3d 92, 103-04 (2d Cir.2000) 

(refusing to dismiss where complaint alleged agreement 

resulting in denial of a necessary input to a competitor). 

12 


4. Plaintiff sufficiently alleged monopoly power or the 

elements of attempt to monopolize 

The complaint alleges and Neoforma and the Novation 

defendant parties surprisingly subsequently proved the 

plaintiff’s claims for Sherman 1 combination and conspiracy 

in restraint of trade antitrust violations through their 

conduct and official press releases. See Exbs. 3 and 4: 

“The current 10-year exclusive outsourcing agreement 

was originally entered into in March 2000 and was most 

recently amended in August 2003 as a result of 

negotiations between the parties to the contract. Under 

the terms of that amendment, the quarterly maximum 

payment from Novation to Neoforma was established at 

$15.25 million, or $61.0 million per year, beginning in 

2004.” 

Exb 3 Neoforma SEC disclosure press release pg. 1 

“In addition, at the effective time of the Merger, VHA 

and UHC, which respectively owned 8,611,217 and 

2,130,302 shares of Neoforma common stock prior to the 

Merger, representing approximately 41.5% and 10.3% of 

Neoforma outstanding common stock, respectively had 

2,004,190 and 495,810 of their shares of Neoforma 

common stock converted into the right to receive $10.00 

per share in cash in the Merger. The remainder of the 

shares that they held were exchanged, immediately prior 

to the closing of the Merger, for membership interests 

in GHX representing approximately an 11.6% ownership 

interest in GHX for VHA and a 2.9% ownership interest 

in GHX for UHC, pursuant to exchange agreements.” 

Exb 4 Neoforma SEC disclosure press release pg. 1 

The complaint does describe the Novation defendant’s 

market power in many places. The following three paragraphs 

from the complaint are an example: 

13 


56 states: “By 8/21/04 The NY Times reported that the 

Justice Department had opened a broad criminal 

investigation of the medical-supply industry revealing that 

Novation is being subjected to a criminal inquiry: 

“Novation's primary business is to pool the 

purchasing volume of about 2,200 hospitals, as well as 

thousands of nursing homes, clinics and physicians' 

practices, and to use their collective power to 

negotiate contracts with suppliers at a discount. In 

many cases, the contracts offer special rebates to 

hospitals that meet certain purchasing targets. 

Although Novation is not well known outside the 

industry, it wields formidable power because it can 

open, or impede, access to a vast institutional market 

for health products.” [emphasis added] 

433 states: 

“The defendant Novation LLC is the largest 

Hospital Group Purchasing Organization selling over 30 

billion dollars in hospital supplies a year and 

controlling the purchasing in 2000 hospitals 

nationwide.” 

434 states: 

“The defendants possess market power having the 

power to exclude competitors from 2000 of the nation’s 

hospitals, which Novation controls under long term 

purchasing contracts. The defendants possess market 

power in the ability to charge manufacturers and 

suppliers fees to have their products sold to 

Novation’s members and additional fees to manufacturers 

and suppliers for allowing their products to be sold 

though the web where member hospitals are required to 

purchase products through Neoforma, Inc. The defendants 

possess market power in having exclusive access to 

Piper Jaffray’s investor research coverage and annual 

healthcare conferences, elements essential to 

effectively obtain capitalization through an initial 

public offering. The defendants possess market power in 

having exclusive access to the commercial banking 

facilities of US Bancorp NA.” 

14 


The complaint identifies the defendant Neoforma and 

the nondefendant coconspirator GHX, LLC as the only other 

electronic marketplaces for hospital supplies (40) besides 

Medical Supply Chain and that Neoforma will be merged with 

GHX, LLC to monopolize the web based market for hospital 

supplies. 

The complaint adequately alleges a conspiracy to 

monopolize under Section 2. To establish such a claim, 

plaintiff must plead and prove (1) a combination or 

conspiracy to monopolize; (2) overt acts done in 

furtherance of the combination or conspiracy; (3) an effect 

upon an appreciable amount of interstate commerce; and (4) 

a specific intent to monopolize. Multistate Legal Studies. 

Inc. v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal & Prof'l Publ'ns, 

Inc., 63 F.3d 1540, 1556 (10th Cir. 1995). 

5. Plaintiff adequately alleges harm to competition 

The plaintiff’s complaint documents harm to the market 

from the defendants’ artificial inflation of hospital 

supply prices. A trilogy of recent Supreme Court decisions 

reflect that it is unnecessary at the pleading stage to 

state every element of a claim, See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema 

N.A., 534 U.S. 

15 


506 (2002); Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998); 

Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & 

Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993). 

6. Plaintiff has standing 

The plaintiff Medical Supply Chain, Inc., like the 

sole proprietorship Medical Supply Chain and Sam Lipari the 

founder and CEO of Medical Supply Chain, Inc. ( a statutory 

trustee of the corporation under Missouri § 351.525 RSMo) 

and now the proprietor of Medical Supply Chain, a hospital 

supply business excluded from the market by the continuing 

acts of the defendants has standing. 

Missouri’s rule 52.13(e) states "When a corporation 

has been sued and served with a process or has appeared 

while in being, and is thereafter disolved or its charter 

forfeited, the action shall not be affected thereby ...." 

Accordingly, under § 351.525, "[t]he statutory trustees 

succeed to the interest of the corporation by operation of 

law ". Sab Harmon Indus. v. All State Bldg. Sys., 733 

S.W.2d 476, 483 (Mo.App.1987). 

It has been asserted that like the trial court in case 

World of Sleep’s conclusion that World of Sleep's lost 

profits from potential sales to the licensee stores were 

too speculative because "there is no history at all of any 

profit or loss on these dealings during the years involved 

16 


in this case World of Sleep, Inc. v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co., 

756 F.2d 1467 at 1478 (C.A.10 (Colo.), 1985). This error 

contradicts established Tenth Circuit and US Supreme Court 

law: 

“If proof of a profit and loss history were required, 

no plaintiff could ever 

recover for losses resulting from his inability to 

enter a market. However, 

such recoveries are clearly available under section 4 

of the Clayton Act. 

See, e.g., Zenith, 395 U.S. at 129, 89 S.Ct. at 1579. ( 

Zenith Radio Corp. v. 

Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 123-24, 89 

S.Ct. 1562, 1576-77, 23 

L.Ed.2d 129 (1969) )” 

World of Sleep, Inc. v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co., 756 F.2d 

1467 at 1478 (C.A.10). 

7. Plaintiff pled he required elements for an antitrust 

claim based on interlocking directors 

The defendants omit that Rule 8 of the federal rules 

of civil procedure governs. No special pleading 

requirements attach in antitrust cases, beyond those 

specifically set out by Congress; antitrust plaintiffs thus 

enjoy the same general standard for stating a claim as 

other litigants. See Radovich v. National Football League, 

352 U.S. 445, 453-54, 77 S.Ct. 390, 1 L.Ed.2d 456 (1957); 

Nagler v. Admiral Corporation, 248 F.2d 319, 323-24 (2d 

Cir.1957). 

17 


The burden to state a claim for interlocking directors 

is exceedingly low: 

“Defendant also maintains that plaintiff has failed to 

state a claim under § 8 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

19. Section 8 prohibits interlocking directorates of 

competing corporations if elimination of competition 

between them by agreement would violate any of the 

antitrust laws. Defendant intends to seek majority 

representation on plaintiff's board of directors after 

the acquisition of seventy five percent of the 

plaintiff's stock (SEC FORM S-7 at 16). United States 

v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 111 F.Supp. 614 

(S.D.N.Y.1953), the district court granted summary 

judgment against the defendant, ordering the 

resignation of a director from the board of one or both 

of two competitor corporations upon which he sat, 

because of a potential anticompetitive agreement.10 In 

light of Sears, we hold that plaintiff has adequately 

stated a claim under § 8 of the Clayton Act.” 

American Medicorp, Inc. v. Humana, Inc., 445 F.Supp. 

573 at 587 (E.D. Pa., 1977). At footnote 10, the American 

Medicorp court goes on to explain the purpose for easily 

triggering interlocking directorate liability: 

“[w]hat Congress intended by § 8 was to nip in the 

bud incipient violations of the antitrust laws by 

removing the opportunity or temptation to such 

violations through interlocking directorates. The 

legislation was essentially preventative. 

* * * * * * 

While it may be acknowledged that the 

clause is not crystal clear, to infuse it with the 

meaning contended for by the defendants would defeat 

the Congressional purpose "to arrest the creation of 

trusts, conspiracies and monopolies in their incipiency 

and before consummation." This conclusion is compelled 

because of the futility of trying to decide whether a 

given hypothetical merger would violate the pertinent 

sections of the antitrust laws. Sears, supra, at 616- 

617. (Footnotes omitted).” 

18 


The complaint states the defendants had interlocking 

directors to facilitate their monopoly and that antitrust 

law violations occurred: 

235 states: 

“The May 25, 2000 announcement also revealed the 

interlocking directors used by the Defendants to 

restrain trade in hospital supplies. In connection with 

the new agreements, two of the seven seats on the 

Neoforma.com Board of Directors will be filled by VHA 

designees after closing of the transaction.” 

368 states: 

“(US Bancorp has interlocking directorships and an 

exchange of directors with the two dominant GPO founders of 

GHX LLC.; the Defendant Novation and Premier. US Bancorp 

helped the Defendant Novation acquire control of the 

Defendant Neoforma and partner it with GHX LLC. creating a 

monopoly of over 80% of healthcare e-commerce).” 

424 states: 

“Medical Supply Chain, Inc. has been excluded from the 

hospital supply market with agreements between UHA and 

VHA’s Novation in combination with their electronic 

marketplace Neoforma, Inc. US Bancorp NA, and The Piper 

Jaffray Companies exchanged directors with Novation and 

participated in exclusive agreements with Novation and 

Neoforma to keep hospitals using technology products from 

companies US Bancorp NA and Piper Jaffray had an interest 

in. The purpose of these agreements was to injure the 

hospital supply consumers with artificially inflated 

prices.” 

500 states: 

“The Defendants use of interlocking directors in 

joint ventures and LLC’s formed by competing suppliers, 

manufacturers and distributors and use of interlocking 

directors on the boards of healthcare technology and 

supply chain management companies violate Section 8 of 

the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 19.” 

19 


502 states: 

“Defendants through the use of interlocking 

directors collectively have at all times material to 

this complaint maintained, attempted to achieve and 

maintain, or combined or conspired to achieve and 

maintain, a monopoly over the sale of hospital 

supplies, the sale of hospital supplies in e-commerce, 

and over the capitalization of healthcare technology 

companies and supply chain management companies in the 

several Stated of the United States; and have used, 

attempted to use, or combined and conspired to use, 

their monopoly power and interlocking directors to 

affect competition in the sale of hospital supplies, 

the sale of hospital supplies in e-commerce, and over 

the capitalization of healthcare technology companies 

and supply chain management companies sale of the same 

in the several States of the United States in violation 

of 15 U.S.C. § 19.” 

8. Plaintiff attempts to assert a RICO claim, but fails to 

allege a racketeering act, a pattern of racketeering, or a 

RICO injury; 

The plaintiff has adequately alleged the existence of 

a RICO enterprise and that the Novation defendants is part 

of the association in fact that comprises the enterprise. 

a. Enterprise 

Allegations of the existence of a RICO enterprise must 

meet only the "notice pleading" requirements of Fed.R.Civ. 

Pro. 8. Trustees of Plumbers and Pipefitters 886 F.Supp. 

1134, 1144-45 (S.D.N.Y.1995)' Nat'l Pension Fund v. 

Transworld Mech., Inc., 886 F.Supp. 1134, 1144-45 

(S.D.N.Y.1995); Azurite Corp. v. Amster & Co., 730 F.Supp. 

571 (S.D.N.Y.1990). 

20 


The enterprise was alleged to have committed predicate 

acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and they were 

alleged with the required specificity and identified which 

defendants committed which acts. 

"To sufficiently state a RICO claim, [p]laintiffs must 

plead `(1) conduct, (2) of an enterprise, (3) through a 

pattern, (4) of racketeering activity.'" Cyber Media Group, 

Inc. v. Island Mortgage Network, Inc., 183 F.Supp.2d 559, 

578 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (quoting Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 

Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 

(1985)).” 

Calabrese v. Csc Holdings, Inc., 283 F.Supp.2d 797 at 

807 (E.D.N.Y., 2003). See also Krear v. Malek, 961 F.Supp. 

1065 (E.D. Mich., 1997): 

“Regardless, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an 

"enterprise" in that they have alleged an associationin-fact 

between Lease Equities, NBF, NBF Cable, Turner 

and Malek. See Frank v. D'Ambrosi, 4 F.3d 1378, 1386 

(6th Cir.1993). In Frank, the Sixth Circuit stated 

that: "To satisfy the enterprise requirement, an 

association-in-fact must be an ongoing organization, 

its members must function as a continuing unit, and it 

must be separate from the pattern of racketeering 

activity in which it engages." Id. (citing United 

States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 

2528-29, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981)). 

Plaintiffs have properly alleged that the 

racketeering activity, i.e., the sale of notes through 

Lease Equities to perpetuate the alleged Ponzi scheme, 

is distinct from the association-in-fact which 

associated for legitimate business purposes, to wit: 

Lease Equities entered into legitimate leases with 

third parties; NBF Cable entered into legitimate cable 

television contracts; and Lease Equities was a secured 

creditor of NBF Cable. 

Third, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged, 

under § 1962(d), that defendants conspired to violate 

§§ 1962(b) and (c). To state a claim under § 1962(d), a 

plaintiff must plead that the defendant agreed to join 

21 


the conspiracy, agreed to commit predicate acts, and 

knew that those acts were part of a pattern of 

racketeering activity. See Glessner v. Kenny, 952 F.2d 

702, 714 (3rd Cir. 1991). While plaintiffs have not 

used the word "agreement" per se, they have stated that 

defendants Malek, Turner and Lease Equities "have 

conspired to violate RICO," and have well-pleaded a set 

of facts from which a conspiracy can be inferred in the 

FARCS. See Baumer v. Pachl, 8 F.3d 1341, 1346 (9th 

Cir.1993); Manning v. Stigger, 919 F.Supp. 249, 254 

(E.D.Ky.1996).” 

Krear v. Malek, 961 F.Supp. 1065 at 1070-1071 (E.D. 

Mich., 1997). 

b. RICO Conspiracy 

The complaint alleges the Novation defendants are part 

of a RICO conspiracy. Plaintiffs have alleged that the 

defendant First Franklin engaged in a conspiracy to commit 

the acts mentioned above in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

1962(d). 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) states: "It shall be unlawful 

for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions 

of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section." 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1962(d). 

c. No Overt Act Required 

The Supreme Court's 1997 decision Salinas v. United 

States, 522 U.S. 52, 118 S.Ct. 469, 139 L.Ed.2d 352, is 

controlling. The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs need 

only allege that defendants "knew of and agreed to 

facilitate the scheme." Id. at 478. 

22 


There is no requirement of some overt act or 

specific act in the [RICO] statute before us, unlike the 

general conspiracy provision applicable to federal crimes, 

which requires that at least one of the conspirators have 

committed an `act to effect the object of the conspiracy.' 

§ 371: 

“A [RICO] conspirator must intend to further an 

endeavor which, if completed, would satisfy all of the 

elements of a substantive criminal offense, but it 

suffices that he adopt the goal of furthering or 

facilitating the criminal endeavor ... One can be a 

conspirator by agreeing to facilitate only some of the 

acts leading to the substantive offense. It is 

elementary that a [RICO] conspiracy may exist and be 

punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues, 

for the conspiracy is a distinct evil, and so 

punishable in itself.” 

Salinas, 118 S.Ct. at 476-77. 

The Novation defendants do not refute the conduct of 

the other defendants. Having established a RICO conspiracy, 

the Novation defendants must make a factual showing to 

escape. "Once a conspiracy is shown to exist, the evidence 

sufficient to link another defendant to it need not be 

overwhelming." United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 97 (2d 

Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Amato, 15 F.3d 230, 235 

(2d Cir.1994)). Plaintiff’s § 1962(d) allegations suffice 

to satisfy Salinas. 

"[o]nce a RICO enterprise is established, a defendant 

may be found liable even if he does not have specific 

knowledge of every member and component of the 

23 


enterprise." Mason Tenders District Council Pension 

Fund v. Messera, 1996 WL 351250 at *6 (S.D.N.Y.1996) 

("Whether or not this conduct is viewed as being at the 

core of the enterprise ..."). Furthermore, "[t]he RICO 

statute has been repeatedly construed to cover both 

insiders as well as those peripherally connected to a 

RICO enterprise, particularly where the "outsiders" are 

alleged to have engaged in kick-backs in order to 

influence the enterprise's decision." Id. Azrielli v. 

Cohen Law Offices, 21 F.3d 512, 514-15, 521 (2d 

Cir.1994) (Judge Kearse held that the district court 

should not have dismissed the § 1962(c) claim against 

defendant who served as "the middle person in [a] flip 

sale" of a building "`by allowing his name to be used 

on the bogus contract and showing up at the 

closing.'").” 

In re Sumitomo Copper Litigation, 104 F.Supp.2d 314 

(S.D.N.Y., 2000). 

To be convicted of conspiracy to violate RICO under § 

1962(d), the conspirator need not himself have committed or 

agreed to commit the two or more predicate acts, as long as 

each agreed to act in furtherance of the scheme. Salinas v. 

United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63, 118 S.Ct. 469, 139 L.Ed.2d 

352 (1997). Under this statute, there is no requirement of 

some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Id. 

9. Plaintiff’s USA Patriot Act claim is a legally valid 

private cause of action under that Act as a matter of law. 

There are numerous expressly stated private causes of 

action under USA PATRIOT Act Public Law 107–56 ‘‘Uniting 

and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools 

Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT 

ACT) Act of 2001’’ contains private rights of action even 

24 


expressly stated in the acts subheadings; SEC. 223. CIVIL 

LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES and the 

plaintiff’s averred malicious reporting to which there is a 

private right in SEC. 355 which states: 

‘‘(3) MALICIOUS INTENT.—Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this subsection, voluntary disclosure made 

by an insured depository institution, and any director, 

officer, employee, or agent of such institution under 

this subsection concerning potentially unlawful 

activity that is made with malicious intent, shall not 

be shielded from liability from the person identified 

in the disclosure.” [ emphasis added ]. 

Additional private rights of action are communicated in 

sections that immunize “good faith” disclosure of 

information from third parties. The qualifying of immunity 

to third parties’ causes of action for civil liability are 

expressions of Congressional intent for private rights of 

action; i.e. § 215 of USA Patriot amends FISA § 501(e) (as 

amended): “A person who, in good faith, produces tangible 

things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be 

liable to any other person for such production.” 

10. US District Courts Recognize USA PATRIOT Act Private 

Rights of Action 

It is unclear how the Novation defendants state such a 

clearly erroneous assertion as the non existence of private 

rights of action under the USA PATRIOT Act when it is 

contradicted by case law: 

25 


“Section 315 of the Patriot Act amends and expands 18 

U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7), a RICO provision that establishes 

money-laundering as a predicate act. Pub.L. No. 107-56, 

§ 315; or 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).” 

European Community v. Japan Tobacco, Inc., 186 

F.Supp.2d 231 at pg. 238 (E.D.N.Y., 2002). 

“…as part of the USA-PATRIOT Act, the Congress again 

amended § 2520 to add that an aggrieved party could 

recover from an intercepting "person or entity, other 

than the United States." Pub.L. No. 107-56, § 223, 115 

Stat. 293, 384” 

Williams v. City of Tulsa, Ok, 393 F.Supp.2d 1124 

(N.D. Okla., 2005) 

“Finally, section 2520(a) was again amended in 2001 by 

the USA Patriot Act, which added the phrase "other than 

the United States" following "person or entity." See 

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing 

Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct 

Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 

107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001). Thus, as currently 

enacted, section 2520(a) states that "any person whose 

wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, 

disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this 

chapter may in a civil action recover from the person 

or entity, other than the United States, which engaged 

in that violation such relief as may be appropriate." 

18 U.S.C.A. § 2520(a) (West Supp. 2003) (emphasis 

added).” 

Huber v. North Carolina State University, No. COA03- 

145 (N.C. App. 4/20/2004) (N.C. App., 2004). 

11. Plaintiff’s case has been brought in good faith. 

The complaint alleges the Novation defendants knew of 

and participated in the efforts to deny the plaintiff legal 

representation. The Novation defendants overtly 

26 


participated in a pleading to prevent Sam Lipari from being 

substituted. In evaluating a dismissal the allegations in 

the complaint are taken as true. The question of dismissal 

does not concern the conduct of the plaintiff to avoid 

injustly being deprived of redress through representation. 

12. Plaintiff Has an Unresolved/Unripe Antitrust Merger 

Claim 

The court’s present ruling if unchanged would lead to 

another year’s delay when the plaintiff files his antitrust 

claim for injury from the merger of Neoforma, Inc. and 

GHX,LLC. The defendants would no doubt claim res judicata 

and claim preclusion and seek to have the plaintiff 

sanctioned without once identifying the transaction date 

and whether it was subsequent to the present complaint. 

Conclusion 

The plaintiff respectfully requests the court 

reconsider its opinion and issue a revised opinion in 

conformance with controlling applicable law. If the court 

follows controlling case law and the express language of 

federal statutes, there is no basis for sanctioning the 

plaintiff or his former counsel. 


____________________ 



Lee's Summit, 816-365-1306 

27 



Pro se 


I certify that on March 14 th , 2006 I mailed a copy of the 

following to: 

Mark A. Olthoff , Jonathan H. Gregor, Logan W. Overman, 

Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. 1700 Twelve Wyandotte 

Plaza 120 W 12th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64105-1929 

Andrew M. Demarea, Corporate Woods Suite 1100, Building 

#32 9225 Indian Creek Parkway Overland Park, Kansas 

66210 (913) 451-3355 (913) 451-3361 (FAX) 

John K. Power, Esq. Husch & Eppenberger, LLC 1700 One 

Kansas City Place 1200 Main Street Kansas City, MO 

64105-2122 ( Also attorney for the General Electric 

defendants and Jeffrey Immelt.) 

Stephen N. Roberts, Esq. Natausha Wilson, Esq. Nossaman, 

Guthner, Knox & Elliott 34th Floor 50 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Bruce Blefeld, Esq. Kathleen Bone Spangler, Esq. Vinson & 

Elkins L.L.P. 2300 First City Tower 1001 Fannin Houston, 

TX 77002 

____________________ 



Lee's Summit, 816-365-1306 


Pro se 

28 


!"#$%&'%()*+",$-% 

.$$/"*#0%)$%()1% 

23435%67%8,9-1)0%:;%)%6%@@@25% 

2AB4CA3C@A@C54%%%%%#=/D/*#EF/G,H2'*#$%% 

% 

! 

! 

"#$%!&'!())*! 

! 

+,-!./0123$!4#55$%!67!84!93:2;

!"#$%&"'()&$*'+,$&-(%'()!('()&.'/01,"'-0('&#&-')!#&'(0'*&2*!$-'2*03'$-41*$-5'6&"$+!,' 

7188,.'1-"&*'()&'!-($(*1%('%(!(1(&%9'6*9':,&+;,&-')!"'"*!2(&"'=!%&"'0-'!"#$%& 

'())%*')!#&' 

!'=*0!"&*'8&*%8&+($#&

#$%&'(')*+! 

! 

#,-('.!/0!12%3($.4! 

5..6(%'*!76(!8'3$&2)!#9::)*!;42$%+!!).4677+!! 

!!!!!!@64%!A6B'(! 

! " 



FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

NOV 8 2004 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 


Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

US BANCORP, NA; US BANK 

PRIVATE CLIENT GROUP; 

CORPORATE TRUST; 

INSTITUTIONAL TRUST AND 

CUSTODY; MUTUAL FUND 

SERVICES, LLC.; PIPER JAFFRAY; 

ANDREW CESERE; SUSAN PAINE; 

LARS ANDERSON; BRIAN KABBES; 

UNKNOWN HEALTHCARE 

SUPPLIER, 

No. 03-3342 

(D.C. No. 02-CV-2539-CM) 

(D. Kan.) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before McCONNELL, HOLLOWAY, and PORFILIO, Circuit Judges. 

* 

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of Exb 17 

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the 

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under 

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 


After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to grant the partiesí request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Medical Supply Chain, Inc. appeals from the dismissal of its complaint asserting 

claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Hobbs Act, and 

the USA Patriot Act, and various state law claims. In dismissing the complaint, the 

district court determined that plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief under each of the 

antitrust acts and that there was no private right of action under the USA Patriot Act. 

Because the district court dismissed all of plaintiffís federal law claims, it declined to 

retain jurisdiction over appellantís state law claims. Plaintiff argues that the district court 

erred by: 1) dismissing plaintiffís antitrust claims by imposing a heightened pleading 

standard, 1 and 2) finding no private right of action under the USA Patriot Act. We review 

de novo the district courtís grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6). Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 

1999). 

Having reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law pursuant to the 

above-mentioned standard, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. 

We therefore AFFIRM the challenged decision for the same reasons stated by the district 

court in its Memorandum and Order of June 16, 2003. Appellantís Motion to Amend 

Complaint on Jurisdictional Grounds is DENIED. 

Finally, in the district courtís order, the court reminded plaintiffís counsel of his 

obligations under Rule 11 and stated ì[p]laintiffís counsel is advised to take greater care 

1 

Appellantís brief mentions its Clayton Act and Hobbs Act claims, but appellant 

fails to include any argument as to how the district court erred in dismissing those claims. 

See Aplt. Br. at 7-8, 19. Any issue with respect to those claims is therefore waived. 

Ambus v. Granite Bd. of Educ., 975 F.2d 1555 (10th Cir. 1992). 

2 


in ensuring that the claims he brings on his clientsí behalf are supported by the law and 

the facts.î Aplt. App. Vol. II at 402. Plaintiff then proceeded to file this appeal that is not 

supported by the law or the facts. Accordingly, we ORDER the plaintiff and plaintiffís 

counsel to SHOW CAUSE in writing within twenty days of the date of this order why 

they, jointly or severally, should not be sanctioned for this frivolous appeal pursuant to 

Fed. R. App. P. 38. See Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504, 1510-11 (10th Cir. 1987) 

(discussing courtís ability to impose sanctions against clients and their attorneys under 

Fed. R. App. P. 38). 

Entered for the Court 

John C. Porfilio 

Circuit Judge 

3 



FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 


v. 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

US BANCORP, NA; US BANK PRIVATE CLIENT GROUP; 

CORPORATE TRUST; INSTITUTIONAL TRUST AND CUSTODY; 

MUTUAL FUND SERVICES, LLC.; PIPER JAFFRAY; ANDREW 

CESERE; SUSAN PAINE; LARS ANDERSON; BRIAN KABBES; 

UNKNOWN HEALTHCARE SUPPLIER, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ANSWER TO SHOW CAUSE ON SANCTIONS 

At the close of the US Senate Judiciary Committee's Antitrust 

Subcommittee's hearing entitled “Hospital Group Purchasing: How to 

Maintain Innovation and Cost Savings” on Tuesday, September 14, 2004, 

the subcommittee's chair suggested that the 1.8 trillion dollar market's anticompetitive 

behavior might be better corrected with private antitrust 

litigation than with new legislation. The plaintiff-appellant Medical Supply 

Chain, Inc. believes the Sherman Act prohibits the admitted conduct of the 

defendants in keeping Medical Supply Chain, Inc. from competing with the 

defendants’ openly publicized combination to restrain trade in hospital 

1 

Exb 18 


supplies which included the threat of malicious USA PATRIOT Act 

reporting and the repudiation of the defendants’ contract to provide Medical 

Supply Chain, Inc. escrow accounts required for capitalizing its market 

entry. 

Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel continue to recognize and assert that 

the district court erred by: 1) dismissing plaintiff’s antitrust claims by 

imposing a heightened pleading standard, and 2) finding no private right of 

action under the USA Patriot Act. 

Plaintiff filed this appeal that is supported by the law and the facts. 

Plaintiff incorporates by reference plaintiff’s appellate opening and reply 

briefs along with the supporting record contained in the appendices for 

docket # 03-3342 and docket # 02-3443 including the evidentiary 

attachments of both parties in support of their motions for pre-hearing relief. 

The defendant U.S. Bank was in contract with Medical Supply Chain, 

Inc. to provide escrow accounts. U.S. Bank broke the contract, Medical 

Supply Chain, Inc.’s complaint (written shortly after to obtain emergency 

injunctive relief and avoid the resulting irreparable harm 1 ) alleged the 

1 

The defendant US Bancorp Piper Jaffray’s adverse admission of 

economic research reveals that a web based electronic marketplace for 

hospital supplies like Medical Supply Chain, Inc. would eliminate 83 billion 

dollars in inefficiency. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 27. 

2 


eaking of the contract was a result of exclusive dealing agreements 

between the defendants which included Unknown Healthcare Supplier. 

“[T]he exclusive dealing arrangement itself satisfies the § 1 requirement of 

coordinated action.” Geneva Pharmaceuticals Technology Corp. v. Barr 

Laboratories Inc., No. 02-9222 at pg. 45 (Fed. 2nd Cir. 10/18/2004) (Fed. 

2nd Cir., 2004). 

Medical Supply’s complaint satisfied the two or more independent 

actors requirement for a Sherman 1 prohibited combination. To prove a § 1 

violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a combination or some form of 

concerted action between at least two legally distinct economic entities that 

(2) unreasonably restrains trade. See Tops Mkts., 142 F.3d at 95; Capital 

Imaging Assocs., P.C. v. Mohawk Valley Med. Assocs., Inc., 996 F.2d 537, 

542 (2d Cir. 1993). 

The plaintiff’s complaint in the alternative alleged the actions of the 

defendant US Bancorp companies as a single firm in breaking the contract 

violated Sherman 2: 

“The leading case imposing § 2 liability for refusal to deal with 

competitors is Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 

U. S. 585, in which the Court concluded that the defendant's 

termination of a voluntary agreement with the plaintiff suggested a 

willingness to forsake short-term profits to achieve an anticompetitive 

end.” [emphasis added] 

3 


Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Trinko, 540 U.S. ___ 

(U.S. 1/13/2004) (2004). 

Finally, the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel decline to accept Hon. 

Judge John C. Porfilio’s revisionist pronouncement about the lack of a 

private right of action in the USA PATRIOT Act. 

Public Law 107–56 ‘‘Uniting and Strengthening America by 

Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism 

(USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001’’ contains at least two private rights of 

action 2 ; SEC. 223. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN UNAUTHORIZED 

DISCLOSURES and the plaintiff’s often averred malicious reporting to 

which there is a private right in SEC. 355 which states ‘‘(3) MALICIOUS 

INTENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, 

voluntary disclosure made by an insured depository institution, and any 

director, officer, employee, or agent of such institution under this subsection 

concerning potentially unlawful activity that is made with malicious intent, 

2 

Additional private rights of action are communicated in sections that 

immunize “good faith” disclosure of information from third parties. The 

qualifying of immunity to third parties’ causes of action for civil liability are 

expressions of Congressional intent for private rights of action; i.e. § 215 of 

USA Patriot amends FISA § 501(e) (as amended): “A person who, in good 

faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall 

not be liable to any other person for such production.” 

4 


shall not be shielded from liability from the person identified in the 

disclosure.” [ emphasis added ]. 

Plaintiff’s counsel calls this court’s attention to the fact that 

irreparable harm has been suffered by the plaintiff and the nation’s hospitals, 

including loss of human lives while respectful requests for relief have been 

met with the trial court’s dismissal, this court’s denial of pre-hearing relief 3 

and the present decision. 

The plaintiff’s counsel has responded with timely well researched 

pleadings based upon a thorough investigation of the facts and applicable 

law. Medical Supply Chain, Inc. will continue to seek a hearing from a court 

that will do the same. 



___________________ 



# G33, 

2961 SW Central Park, 


1-785-267-4084 


3 

The trial court based its dismissal in part upon this court’s denial of pre 

hearing relief in #02-3443, a decision the plaintiff’s memorandums of 

6/26/03 and 7/10/03 showed surprisingly contradicted Tenth Circuit 

controlling authority. 

5 



I certify I have served two copies of this pleading upon opposing 

counsel listed below via U.S. Mail on November 10 th , 2004. 

Mark A. Olthoff 

Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC--Kansas City 


120 West 12th Street 


816-421-3355 

Fax: 816-374-0509 

Email: molthoff@stklaw.com 

6 


! 

!"#$%&'"(&)*+,'-,..&+'/&/$%,0'+-$%&1+'%+%&!,-23&1+'%+%&+%&-4$&)*+5$&".&-6,+*7& 

& 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

! """""""""""""""""""! 

& 

& 

& 

& 

86$-&97&:+'/6,-4& 

#$%&'&()*&+,! 

! 

;

! "#!$%&!'()&*+,-(&)#!).!%&*&/0!1&*$,20!$%3$!"!13'+&)!3!$*'&!3()!1.**&1$!1.40! 

.2!$%&!2.*&-.,(-!$.!/&!)&4.+,$&)!,(!$%&!5676!83,9#!4.+$3-&!4*&43,)#!.(!$%,+!:;$%! 

)30!.2!>;!3))*&++&)!$.! 

! 

@3$*,1A!B6!C1D3'-%9,(! 

C3*A!E6!F9$%.22! 

E$$.*(&0+!2.*!G&2&()3($+! 

7',$&!:H>>! 

H>!7.'$%!7,I$%!7$*&&$! 

C,((&34.9,+#!C;K:JLM! 

N3I!O:;KPJ>K;OJP! 

Q&*$,2,&)!/0#! 

! 

RRRRRRRRRRRRRR! 

S*&$!G6!D3()*,$%! 

T3(+3+!7'4*&8&!Q.'*$!U!;>PM>! 

E$$.*(&0!2.*!@93,($,22!C7Q"! 

@6F6!S.I!:VK;:PV! 

T3(+3+!Q,$0#!T7!OO::VK>:PV! 

:6M:OK;;>KJ:;M! 

:6O;>6;P:KVOPO! 

N3I!:KVPJKHJLKOJLH! 

! 

########################################################### 

, ! F8(,1&99#!"(16!1.843(0!4*&++!*&9&3+&!)3$&)!E'-'+$!>V#!;>>:! 

! 

,, ! B'90!;V!W@X>;! 

! 

= !;! 

! 

=,, ! !3$4*5(%/0$6'--07$",8-/2(*+$9*%*(:*$;>;! 

! !" 


############################################################################################################################################################################# 

! 

"### ! !!"#$%&'()*"+'$),-".$*/"0%12"34&'"5)2678"19":172".$-,691*-$!%&'()*#+,-! 

.)/0$!12!3#456-!78'-!9::9! 

! 

#; ";79&'7&9"0),,*2":1718&5+545@!AB-!ACCC! 

! 

; !DE!%71FGHI!17!J5!6#05!,&45K)'5!*5J6!)@0#+/5!@5')@(#*'!L)//#*'!")/856!&L! 

"5*08@5!L8*(6!#*+/8(#*'!0,&65!&L!DE!%71FGHI!17-!()05(!G+0=!AM-9::9# 

;# #15&L&@4)=+&4-!N*+!I@566!H5/5)65$!O)@+,!P:-!9:::! 

15&L&@4)=+&4-!N*+=!Q17E>7RS!1TGUV-!T+/#K6W6!F&@K&@)0#&*!Q17E>7RS!TFXIV! 

)*(!#@5+0=+&4!I@566!H5/5)65! 

O)@+,!9a-!9:::! 

# 

;#" !0919&"09&,-"),"#'$B&"$("C&-&1'@D"19"#6,&'"E1(('12F!O5#6*5@-!b5LL$!I8'50!E&8*(! 

%86#*566!b&8@*)/!G+0!9A-!9::9! 

! 

;" !NIG4&*#0&@=+&4!()0))65! 

! 

;"# !>$

############################################################################################################################################################################# 

! 

"#$$ !%&!'()*+,-!-.-/,!0(11,(2!3456784!1759!:4;!!@@A! 

! 

"#$$$ #!"#$%&'(#)*"+,&%+,#)-""#,)."/,0)10)2#%/3)')*4$$(0)540%/3)67"4$B!CD>!(56$687

Exb 20

08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?